Loading...
CCPC Agenda 12/03/2020 Collier County Planning Commission Page 1 Printed 11/25/2020 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 December 3, 2020 9: 00 AM Edwin Fryer- Chairman Karen Homiak - Vice-Chair Karl Fry- Secretary Christopher Vernon Paul Shea, Environmental Joseph Schmitt, Environmental Robert Klucik, Jr. 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. December 2020 Collier County Planning Commission Page 2 Printed 11/25/2020 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call by Secretary 3. Addenda to the Agenda 4. Planning Commission Absences 5. Approval of Minutes A. November 5, 2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes 6. BCC Report - Recaps 7. Chairman's Report 8. Consent Agenda 9. Public Hearings A. Advertised 1. ***Note: This item was continued from the November 5, 2020 CCPC meeting to the November 19, 2020 CCPC meeting and further continued to the December 3, 2020 CCPC Meeting*** PL20190000808 CU - A Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida amending Resolution No. 03-332, which established a conditional use for earthmining, to expand the conditional use for earthmining pursuant to Section 2.03.01.A.1.c.1 of the Collier County Land Development Code by adding 231.73± acres and revising the conditions of approval for the property located in the Agricultural (A) zoning district within the Mobile Home Overlay (MHO) and the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSAO), for a total of 450.7± acres. The property is located on the west side of SR 29 North, south of SR 82 in the Immokalee Planning Area in Sections 18 And 19, Township 46 South Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Timothy Finn, AICP, Principal Planner] December 2020 Collier County Planning Commission Page 3 Printed 11/25/2020 2. ***Note: This item was continued from the November 5, 2020 CCPC meeting to the November 19, 2020 CCPC meeting and further continued to the December 3, 2020 CCPC Meeting.*** PL20200000564 PUDA - An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 05-46, the Bembridge Emergency Services Complex Community Facility Planned Unit Development (CFPUD) and Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD), to redesignate 5.11± acres of land from Tract A to Tract A-1; to increase the residential density from 6 to 16 units/acre for a maximum of 82 residential units on Tract A-1, using the affordable housing density bonus and to amend the master plan; and providing an effective date. The subject property consists of 39.82± acres and is located east of Santa Barbara Boulevard, north of Davis Boulevard (SR 84) in Section 4, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Timothy Finn, AICP, Principal Planner] 3. ***Note: This item was continued from the November 19, 2020 CCPC meeting and is further continued to the December 17, 2020 CCPC Meeting.*** PL20190002680- CU - Safety Service Facility Golden Gate and DeSoto Blvd (CU) - A Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida providing for the establishment of a conditional use to allow a government safety service facility for fire and emergency medical services within the Estates (E) Zoning District with a Wellfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zone W-4 (ST/W-4), pursuant to Sections 2.03.01.B.1.c.8 and 2.01.03.G.1.e of the Collier County Land Development Code for a 5.46+/- acre property located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Golden Gate Blvd. East and DeSoto Blvd. in Section 9, Township 49 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager] 4. ***Note: This item has been continued to the December 17, 2020 CCPC Meeting.*** PL20200000191- PUDA - Heritage Bay PUDA-An Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 03-40, as amended, the Heritage Bay Planned Unit Development, to amend Section 2.5.A of the PUD document, to clarify the ability of the property owners associations to place and operate access control facilities such as gates and control arms on private roads including but not limited to Limestone Trail, and providing for an effective date. The property is located on the northeast corner of Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard (CR 951) in Sections 13, 14, 23 and 24, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of approximately 2,562± acres. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, PLA, Principal Planner] 5. ***Note: This item was continued from the November 5, 2020 CCPC meeting to the November 19, 2020 CCPC meeting, was further continued to the December 3, 2020 CCPC Meeting and has been continued indefinitely*** PL20190002105-CU A Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida providing for the establishment of a conditional use to allow a horticultural waste facility for the collection, transfer, processing, and reduction of solid waste with the accessory use of incidental retail sale of processed horticultural material within an Agricultural (A) Zoning District with a Rural Fringe Mixed Use Overlay-Receiving Lands (RFMUO-Receiving Lands), pursuant to Section 2.03.08.A.2.a.(3)(c)iv of the Collier County Land Development Code for a ±16.43-acre property located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Tamiami Trail East (U.S. 41) and Riggs Road, approximately five miles east of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), in Section 20, Township 51 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Timothy Finn, AICP, Principal Planner] December 2020 Collier County Planning Commission Page 4 Printed 11/25/2020 B. Noticed 10. New Business A. 2021 Meeting Schedule 11. Old Business 12. Public Comment 13. Adjourn 12/03/2020 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 5.A Item Summary: November 5, 2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes Meeting Date: 12/03/2020 Prepared by: Title: Operations Analyst – Planning Commission Name: Diane Lynch 11/23/2020 4:04 PM Submitted by: Title: Manager - Planning – Zoning Name: Ray Bellows 11/23/2020 4:04 PM Approved By: Review: Planning Commission Diane Lynch Review item Completed 11/23/2020 4:05 PM Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 11/23/2020 4:15 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 11/24/2020 1:08 PM Growth Management Department James C French Review Item Completed 11/24/2020 1:09 PM Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 11/24/2020 5:22 PM Zoning Anita Jenkins Additional Reviewer Completed 11/25/2020 8:00 AM Planning Commission Edwin Fryer Meeting Pending 12/03/2020 9:00 AM 5.A Packet Pg. 5 November 5, 2020 Page 1 of 126 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, November 5, 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 Robert L. Klucik, Jr. (absent for roll call) Christopher T. Vernon Tom Eastman, Collier County School Board Representative ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney 5.A.a Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 2 of 126 P R O C E E D I N G S CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good morning. And welcome to the November 5, 2020, meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. Will everyone please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Will the secretary please call the roll. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Shea? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm here. Chairman Fryer? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Vice Chair Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Vernon? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Klucik? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Chairman, we have a quorum of six. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Before proceeding, I've been informed that Mr. Yovanovich has raised an objection to my continuing in this matter as a result of having handed out a compendium of what I believe is already in evidence, and so I'm going to turn the matter over to the County Attorney for his advice, please, sir. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. And Mr. Yovanovich came up to my office about 15 minutes ago. My understanding is that you have compiled a list of properties with information on it as far as actual height, feet, density, whatever. Mr. Yovanovich told me that he wanted to cross-examine you as a potential witness in this. Because of that, you cannot sit as a role in a quasi-judicial aspect and be a witness in the same proceeding, and so you'll need to, for this meeting, step down and, Ms. Homiak, you have the chair. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is that correct, Mr. Yovanovich? Is that your position, sir? MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Fryer, you know I have the utmost respect for you as your role as a chair, but I do think it is not appropriate for any -- anybody on the Planning Commission to compile information, provide it to their colleagues as part of the hearing process, and now put me in a position where, one, I have to fact check it as part of the hearing process right before the hearing, and then I may have to ask you questions about the material. So with all due respect, I do think that you need to step down as a judge in this case, and that's why I've raised the objection because I just don't think it's appropriate -- and I would do it to anybody who decided they wanted to provide information that they think is fact worthy to people on this board. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Naturally, I'm going to take the advice of the County Attorney, but by your leave, I want to explain what this is and why I -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. YOVANOVICH: I would like that information to be removed. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 3 of 126 COMMISSIONER VERNON: I'm sorry to interrupt, Mr. Chairman, but could I ask a couple questions? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Mr. Klatzkow, could we -- I haven't even looked at it. Could we just not consider it, deem it inadmissible, ignore it, and we've solved the problem? MR. KLATZKOW: I can't unring the bell. I mean, had Chairman Fryer come to me before the meeting and said, I'd like to hand this out, I would have said, no, that's a terrible idea. Now that he's handed this out, I can't cure it at this point in time. I've got an objection by the petitioner on a matter that has -- controversial, all right, and in the interest of caution so that the applicant does not feel that the proceedings are somehow tainted, I've asked the chair to remove himself from this particular item. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Second question. Is he able to vote? MR. KLATZKOW: No. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Is he able to participate in deliberations? MR. KLATZKOW: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And, naturally, I'm going to follow the advice of our esteemed County Attorney, but I would like leave just to explain why I did what I did, what this document is, and what it isn't, since I will be not taking any part in these proceedings. I added no information to this document. In fact, it's annotated to show where it comes from. Most of it comes from the applicant itself through its consultant, Mr. Evans; some of it came from Mr. Stuart; and some of it came from the president of the Pelican Bay Foundation. So I added nothing to this. And I just wanted everyone to understand that I hadn't done that. But I accept complete responsibility for the error that I made, and it's a learning experience for me. And you may rest assured, County Attorney, that I won't let it happen again. MR. KLATZKOW: No. And I'm not even critical of this, all right, because I understand the intention of this. I understand why you did this. But at the foundation of all of this, you guys are volunteers. You put in a lot of time for the county. The last thing I'm going to allow is somehow you become enmeshed in litigation, where you become enmeshed in some sort of complaint that's filed. It's not worth it. I mean, you're volunteers. And, you know, so both for the interest of this case and your own personal interest, I'm very cautious about these things and just think it's -- the most prudent thing for you to do is simply remove yourself from this proceeding. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you for your advice, which -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Question. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Is this legal advice or legal direction? MR. KLATZKOW: I can only counsel you. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: At the end of the day, I can only counsel the Board. My function as an attorney is to counsel. What people do -- I don't direct. I counsel. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I will say this, though, before -- and if I may interrupt, Commissioner. And, County Attorney, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe with respect to the indemnification provisions that apply in this county, should a planning commissioner or any other official government fail to follow the County Attorney's advice, I think he's essentially on his own. MR. KLATZKOW: That is correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. And -- prudence and great respect for the County Attorney -- and I apologize to everyone for the error I made including, of course, to 5.A.a Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 4 of 126 Mr. Yovanovich, and so I will be removing myself from these proceedings, and my apologies also to Vice Chair Homiak who -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah, thanks. MR. EASTMAN: Right. MR. KLATZKOW: It's fortunate this is just a small matter. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I did have one other question. In light of your recusal, do you intend to cross-examine him? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, but -- sorry. Let me get to the mic. No, I don't, but I would like everybody to hand in, if they have not looked at the information, hand that back and not have that be part of the record, if that's okay. Any objections, Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: No, I'm going to make this part of the record only in case this issue pops up. Somebody's going to have to see what this was, so... MR. YOVANOVICH: That's fine. The clerk can obviously have a copy. But I don't want anybody to have it front of them and then maybe they scan down and look at the information. That's the only question. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, that's fine. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Are these pictures part of it because these -- MR. YOVANOVICH: No. I don't know where those pictures came from. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Those were email -- I got an email of these pictures the other day as well. I don't know where these came from. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know either. I'm assuming it's part of -- hopefully, if you got an email from somebody, they also sent it to the county, because I don't think I've seen it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: One of my 1,196 emails of -- on this petition. So the county is welcome. It's all in my record. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to ask that we take a five-minute recess so that we can adjust our positions in the room and proceed from there. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Isn't this all right? CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: You mean change our seats? CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, not necessarily. Are you ready to go? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, yeah. What am I going to do? MR. YOVANOVICH: Give them two seconds. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: If he had done -- okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Take five. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We stand in recess for five minutes until 9:14. Commissioner Fryer left the board room for the remainder of the meeting.) (A brief recess was had from 9:08 a.m. to 9:16 a.m.) CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Let's start the meeting again. Could everybody please sit down. Okay. Addenda to the agenda -- what's that? Okay. Addenda to the agenda. We're all set now? MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. Just a couple of continuances on our agenda today. I wanted to make sure that you-all are aware of those and we can announce those early. So each of the items 9A3 through 9A7, if you want to take a vote to continue those to the November 19th meeting, I would appreciate that. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Is there a motion to continue those two items? COMMISSIONER FRY: So moved. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 5 of 126 MR. FRANTZ: This is 9A3 through 9A7, so several items. COMMISSIONER FRY: Jeremy, am I correct, 9A5 through 7 were already continued in our packet, but 3 and 4 were to be heard today? MR. FRANTZ: That's right, and I think we still want to announce those continuances today even for 5 through 7. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. So moved. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Three through 7. COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes. Move to continue Items 9A3 through 9A7. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: And a second was Paul. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: All those in favor, signify -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I just have a question. Is that based on a premise that this upcoming petition's going to take all day? Is that why we -- MR. FRANTZ: That was the thought process. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is this a request from the applicant, or is this just staff making the proposal? That's what -- I'm curious as to why we wouldn't wait to see if at some time this afternoon we wouldn't have time to get to one of these. I'm puzzled by all this. MR. FRANTZ: And I think that the communication that's gone out to the public and some of the agents has been that One Naples would likely take all day, and so I don't know that we have the applicants available for all those items. We can -- we could find out if anyone is available at the end of the day and continue them at the end of the day, if you'd prefer, for those that weren't already continued. MR. KLATZKOW: No, no. No, no, because then you have the public. I mean, it's not fair to them. So I think the die is cast on this one based on the staff communications. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I guess my second question is, why were we not notified prior to today these were going to be continued? The others were clearly going to be continued, having spent time reviewing these petitions in preparing for today's, and then I'm now told that it's not today. I just find that unacceptable from staff. I should have been notified earlier. MR. FRANTZ: Understood. And I think there was some communication to the chair; however, when the agenda went out, I think we were still trying to determine whether we'd be able to hear them or not, you know, continuing to work with the community. And the applicant on the One Naples projects felt that the items probably would not get finished today. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, don't you think it's somewhat an obligation to let us know instead of coming in today and telling us? MR. FRANTZ: We'll make sure to -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You had planned this was going to take place. I would even like have to known this morning. I'm really annoyed by this. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager. On the Sabal Bay one, the one I've been involved with, the applicant requested this yesterday. We brought this to the attention of the chair yesterday. So that's when the decision was made for all of them to be continued. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: How many hours are from yesterday to today, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Oh, I understand that, and I apologize. That should have been my responsibility to forward to you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Just count me as pretty much annoyed by it. You should let us know. COMMISSIONER FRY: Just to lighten the mood a little bit, we had a 2,800-page packet so I'm, in a way, grateful to have been able to review a couple of them and not have as much to 5.A.a Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 6 of 126 review for next time. But your point is well taken, Joe. It would be nice for us to know. We should be informed. MR. FRANTZ: I do also have your next few meetings on the screen if you have any questions about those schedules, just noting that we've got quite a few continued petitions for the 19th as well as one new petition on the schedule, and a set of LDC Amendments at 5:05 p.m. COMMISSIONER FRY: So we are meeting through the day and then reconvening at 5:05 that same day? MR. FRANTZ: That's the intention. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Will everyone be here on the 19th? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I'll have to check my schedule. I assume I will. COMMISSIONER FRY: That's the regularly scheduled meeting, correct? COMMISSIONER SHEA: It's already on the calendar. MR. FRANTZ: That's right. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Well, I just want to know if anybody's going to be here. COMMISSIONER FRY: I wouldn't miss it. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Approval of the minutes. September 25th, 2020, meeting minutes, is there a motion or -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Second. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Opposed, like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: And October 1st meeting minutes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I move to approve. COMMISSIONER FRY: Second. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Opposed, like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: And October 8th. COMMISSIONER FRY: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Second. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: (No verbal response.) 5.A.a Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 7 of 126 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Opposed, like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: And October 15th meeting minutes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I move to approve. COMMISSIONER FRY: Second. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER VERNON: (No verbal response.) COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Opposed, like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. BCC report and recaps, is there anything, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No. For the record, Ray Bellows. No, we don't have a recap for today. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay, thank you. And there's no chairman's report, no consent agenda, so we'll move into the public hearings. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just a question: Where are we? Today is pretty much the rebuttal or -- okay. We have staff coming up first, then. MR. SABO: For the record, James Sabo, Principal Planner. Today there are a continuation of the public speakers and the representatives from public groups. Seven minutes each Sarah Spector, Ralf Brookes, Bill Schumann, John Bamberger, Betty Pircio, George Marks, and then Buzz Victor. Tony Pires is 15 minutes, and Mr. English from Pelican Bay is 10 minutes, and I have this list here if we need the order. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think we left off -- for the record, Mr. Yovanovich. Mr. Oliver had just completed his direct testimony, and we ended. And I believe at that point Mr. Schmitt asked me to reach out to Mr. Oliver about the traffic circle issue, and I hadn't yet had my opportunity to do a cross. So I think that's where we left off, Madam Chairman. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. And just for the record -- CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: First, I'm going to have people -- anybody that wants to speak on this item, please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. And then I'm going to have disclosures, if there's anything else, Tom. MR. EASTMAN: No disclosures other than the materials in the public record. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Paul? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials and residents. COMMISSIONER FRY: Staff materials, emails, documents and attachments all through public record. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. And I just had more emails. (Mr. Klucik is now present in the boardroom.) COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: In addition to emails, I did speak to Mr. Yovanovich; two things I requested that he address in his rebuttal because I wanted to make clear, one is a list of all the surrounding properties and densities, again, to include height and densities. I did not compile the information, but I asked that he make that clear as part of his rebuttal. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 8 of 126 Certainly, anybody else can raise that as well, but the second thing I asked him to do is to resolve this issue between his transportation consultant and the presentation we had regarding the traffic circle, because though there was some evidence submitted regarding the traffic circle, it was never made clear as to whether this property could be acquired for the traffic circle, whether the Ritz-Carlton would even agree to give up property, and who would do the -- and who would construct the traffic circle. So I asked that the two consultants resolve that issue, and those were the discussions I had with Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Mr. Vernon? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Staff materials, emails, and a brief conversation with Mr. Yovanovich. We were actually talking about some other matter, and he brought up an issue regarding setbacks; brief conversation. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Mr. Klucik, do you have any disclosures on One Naples? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. I guess I'm here now. I apologize. I got caught in traffic. I do not have any disclosures. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. I'm just going to read off these numbers, because we're now continuing with the One Naples PL20190000696, the GMPA, and PL20190000697. It's a PUD. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Madam Chair, just in an abundance of caution, I will say I received many emails, but they're coming to my personal email account, so I'm not reading those. So I actually will have my account as of today, so I will start reading the emails I get. But just -- I did receive a bunch of emails from people. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Emails like everybody else, okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yep. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. So you're going to continue with your -- MR. YOVANOVICH: He was done with his presentation. I think it was my turn to ask him questions. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Oh, okay. MR. OLIVER: Or should the planning board -- I guess typically the planning board goes first with questions, I would think, before you -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I thought they had done that, but if I'm wrong, I'll -- MR. OLIVER: You are wrong. I got to Slide 14 or 15; was cut off. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Are there any questions before Rich starts? Go ahead, Rich. MR. YOVANOVICH: So, Mr. Oliver, are you comfortable switching podiums with me now? MR. OLIVER: I think so, sure. MR. YOVANOVICH: I just have a couple of questions of you, Mr. Oliver. But before, in response to Mr. Schmitt, we did reach out to Mr. Oliver to discuss the possibility of the roundabout that he showed you in his presentation. Jim Banks reached out to him and, ironically, we had studied the same roundabout in our analysis and Mr. Banks, in his rebuttal, will get into the details as to why that roundabout doesn't work. And we talked to staff about why the roundabout doesn't work. So we'll present that in the rebuttal testimony. So hopefully I turned the visualizer on correctly. And my first question to you, Mr. Oliver, is, are you familiar with the Collier County Growth Management Plan Provision 5.1 with regard to analyzing traffic impacts for Growth Management Plan amendments? MR. OLIVER: I'm not sure exactly what section you've highlighted, but I've read through it, so I would probably recognize that if you read it to me. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can you see the screen over there, Mr. Oliver? MR. OLIVER: Yep. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 9 of 126 MR. YOVANOVICH: Are you familiar with that provision? MR. OLIVER: Somewhat, yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Have you -- do you have any evidence or professional opinions that the traffic analysis that we did for the Future Land Use Element and the proposed PUD are not consistent with Policy 5.1? MR. OLIVER: I'm glad you brought that question up. The county has adopted a traffic impact study procedure which the engineers are required to follow. And it's like Paul Harvey, "Here's the rest of the story." I asked county staff to send me those guidelines. The guidelines, if you look in the properties of the document, is named Traffic Impact Studies 041504 indicating the document was probably originally created on April 15th, 2004. The last time, according to that record, it was printed was in 2006. You may remember some conversation in earlier testimony about how growth management legislation was introduced into the Florida Statutes in 1983 or '84. And in that process, the concurrency process was established. It required that infrastructure be provided, that the infrastructure meet standards, and all the counties, everybody -- and required that applicants or developers contribute financially to those improvements. So all counties kind of caught onto the idea, created these traffic impact study procedures. But in 2010, the complexion changed. The Florida legislature -- there's history here. MR. YOVANOVICH: My question was, does he have any evidence that this policy was not complied with? I didn't ask him to give you a testimony about legislative history for the Florida Statutes. The question is: Do you have any evidence that the policy that's sitting in front of you has not been complied with? MR. OLIVER: And my answer is: I don't think so, but there's more to the story. I think in a sense -- MR. YOVANOVICH: He answered the question. MR. OLIVER: I think Mr. Yovanovich is trying to tell you the limit -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Oliver -- MR. OLIVER: -- what you can do. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Oliver, it's my turn to ask questions. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. YOVANOVICH: And you have an attorney who represents your side, and if your attorney wants to address it in his or her comments, that is fine. Have you, yourself, prepared a Traffic Impact Statement for the PUD amendment that is before this county commission -- I mean the Planning Commission? MR. OLIVER: No, I have not. MR. YOVANOVICH: So you have no evidence at all that Mr. Banks and the county's own transportation consultant's conclusions are incorrect? MR. OLIVER: I have followed back through the analysis and the data that the applicant has provided, collected and provided. So from that perspective, I have formulated a reanalysis and indicated the safety issues that I previously indicated at the site access point. I think there's opportunities for better solutions than have been provided. And there are infrastructure deficiencies coming out of that analysis which remain unaddressed. MR. YOVANOVICH: So is that your way of saying, no, you have no evidence that the county's own transportation consultant is incorrect? MR. OLIVER: I don't think there's a right and wrong answer, correct or incorrect. I think this is a matter of public policy, a planning environment where you create a vision for the 5.A.a Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 10 of 126 community and seek to implement that vision. I'm not sure that one solution is better than another. I think some solutions are better than others. In the case -- I think we're getting sidetracked, perhaps, onto the roundabout issue when the fundamental issue is a deficiency in public parking. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Oliver, I appreciate that you want to supplement the record and answer questions I didn't actually ask of you, but I really am going to request, if we're going to get this thing to move forward, that you actually answer the questions I ask. You have your own attorney who, if they want to in their comments address that, they're perfectly capable of doing that. Did you do a traffic impact analysis for the potential C-3 zoning development for the property? MR. OLIVER: I didn't do a complete traffic impact analysis. I did review the applicant's submission about the comparison between a shopping center, Land Use Code 820, and what could happen there. MR. YOVANOVICH: Again, so your answer is no, you didn't do an analysis? MR. OLIVER: Well, I did do an analysis. I reviewed the information and supplemented that with my own experience. So, yeah, in a way I kind of did do an analysis. MR. YOVANOVICH: You criticized the county and our consultants for not looking out beyond the years called for in the Growth Management Plan, correct? MR. OLIVER: Yes, I did. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. And you -- even though that's not required of the county's Comprehensive Plan, you believe that analysis should have been done? MR. OLIVER: And that goes back to part of the answer and the history I was laying out. Yes, I believe the Planning Commission has the ability to look beyond this limited traffic concurrency study that was done. MR. YOVANOVICH: And it is your position that you, as a traffic consultant, would have done that analysis? MR. OLIVER: Oh, had I been involved in you -- you mean as if I were the applicant's transportation engineer? MR. YOVANOVICH: If you were Jim Banks, would you have done -- MR. OLIVER: I have done so in the past in other communities that looked beyond a five-year horizon, yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: And you will agree with me that in other communities you have elected not to do that type of an analysis, correct? MR. OLIVER: I would concede that, yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. So is this a typical -- MR. OLIVER: If staff didn't require it, I wouldn't have done it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. So, basically, do as I say not as I do, correct? MR. OLIVER: No. I think -- I think the planning -- when you're considering a land-use plan amendment, you have the ability to look beyond a five-year horizon or a two-year horizon. MR. YOVANOVICH: So you don't think as a professional you have an obligation to tell the county that they're not asking you enough questions? MR. OLIVER: I think I would -- I tend to do that; however, if the regulations say this is what you do, sure. Working for the applicant, I'm not going to spend more of his money than I need to spend. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's all I have. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: Were we -- looking for interpretation from you, Jeff. Were we able to interject questions at all during that process, or are we silent observers to that? MR. KLATZKOW: Ask away. COMMISSIONER FRY: I wanted to ask Mr. Oliver a question, because just refreshing 5.A.a Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 11 of 126 our memory from the last meeting, could you please elucidate your concerns in the access point that -- you alluded to it -- you alluded to it in your statement there, but I'd just like you to refresh our memories on what your specific concerns were. MR. OLIVER: Sure. The intersection right now at the entrance to the parking garage is a very complicated operation. It has to do with the volume of bicycle and pedestrian traffic. And I was coming over here so I could use the PowerPoint if necessary or maybe just verbally. It's an unusual intersection because of the volume of pedestrian traffic, vehicular traffic, bicycle traffic, and the operation of that parking garage entrance 50 feet away from the edge of Vanderbilt Beach Road. When you introduce this new leg into the intersection, the complexity for the cars exiting the One Naples site gets exponentially more complicated. The -- not only did that driver have to contend with the bicycles and pedestrians on his side of the street and the traffic on his side of the street, he has to assess the parking garage entrance, the traffic on Vanderbilt Beach Road coming from the beach side towards U.S. 41, and even though he -- his right-of-way is subordinate to the car turning left to enter the parking garage, if that car is frozen because of things that are happening in the parking garage, he's got to decide, can I -- is it safe for me to make this left turn out of the driveway, or is the car that's waiting to make his left turn going to make a move. That driver of the guy making the left turn to enter the parking garage, he's looking to the left. There's a car over here to the right that might be coming ahead of me. I don't know. It's complicated. Very unusual, which makes it unsafe. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Can I just follow up, Madam Chair? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Yes. COMMISSIONER VERNON: In your fix, is a roundabout -- your recommendation, if we wanted to -- MR. OLIVER: Not for that solution. Not for that intersection. My solution there is just don't put a driveway connection there. Get access off of the back side of the property. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Explain that. MR. OLIVER: Well, okay -- first of all, okay, the concept of not putting a driveway connection at that point is easy enough, right? That doesn't -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: You said put it on the back side. What do you mean? MR. OLIVER: Well, yeah. They have an access circulation -- well, let me -- COMMISSIONER FRY: South Bay. South Bay Drive. MR. OLIVER: And they have internal circulation which connects both to the north and to the east to South Bay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We'll have to turn the projector on -- take the overhead off and turn on the computer so that we can see it on our screen. MR. OLIVER: Technologic podium computer, perhaps? And there was a nifty little pointing device. Okay. So right now, okay, it's proposed to have a driveway right there where the arrow is, and that's opposite the entrance to the parking garage. COMMISSIONER VERNON: And that's what you were just discussing with Commissioner Fry? MR. OLIVER: Correct. That's the location that I think poses safety issues. However, part of their Site Development Plan is the construction of a driveway across eastward over to South Bay. So my thought is -- and the concept -- remember the fundamental objective is let's separate vehicular traffic from the vulnerable pedestrians and bicyclists over by the beach entrance. So the idea is -- okay, so the idea is to make South Bay the more -- the route for through traffic and have the yellow part there of Gulf Shore Drive and Vanderbilt Beach Road become the bicycle and pedestrian area. Just physically separate the vehicular traffic as best we can from the 5.A.a Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 12 of 126 pedestrian and bicycle traffic. So consistent with that theme, you might bring in access at this location or at this location to serve the development, because they had planned this internal circulator roadway anyway. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. So you're just moving -- you're cutting off the entrance and then moving that entrance/exit further east? MR. OLIVER: To the east, correct. COMMISSIONER VERNON: And that's where you're proposing a roundabout. MR. OLIVER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Madam Chair. MR. OLIVER: And the roundabout, in my mind, is secondary to the fundamental issue. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Of location? MR. OLIVER: Well -- or even if you -- a few slides back I had listed five key issues. Number 2 is the inadequate quantity of public parking, and I think what you're going to hear in testimony from the applicant's traffic engineer is that the real problem occurs when the parking garage fills up and traffic backs up eastward on Vanderbilt Beach Road. Yes, that's going to happen whether you have a roundabout. It's going to happen whether you have a two-way stop. It's going to happen whether you have a four-way stop. The fundamental problem is there's not enough parking to serve the people who want to go to the beach, and that problem, that inadequacy of the county's infrastructure, is creating problems that literally spill over into the county's public roads. So in my mind what doesn't makes sense is how does it make sense to allow an increase in intensity on the property when the existing infrastructure is inadequate. And I don't see county plans, I don't see the applicant's plans to resolve that fundamental inadequacy. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Mr. Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. Could you go back to show me the map that you had up. MR. OLIVER: This one? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, that one. What are those -- what are the blue buildings? MR. OLIVER: The blue buildings that's -- is that Pelican Bay? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So that's existing. MR. OLIVER: Correct. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. And then what are the buildings on the north side? MR. OLIVER: Building 3 and Building 4? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. MR. OLIVER: I think those are part of the applicant's development. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: New project? MR. OLIVER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So it seems like what you're suggesting is to route a lot of traffic in front of a residential area, and that doesn't seem like that's what -- I would be surprised that that's what the people that you are advocating for would -- those people that are in the blue buildings, I don't think they would want a huge increase in traffic that way. But that's -- that seems like an issue with me to -- MR. OLIVER: So it's an issue in my mind that isn't being adequately vetted. In the long run, what the tradeoff is, is do we create a safer environment for the 3-, 4,000 people a day that use the beach and cross Gulf Shore Drive and Vanderbilt Beach Drive because we can. It's a public right-of-way. The Barefoot Pelican, actually those units front on the water side of their buildings, not necessarily the street side. And the volume of traffic that it would put onto South Bay, in my 5.A.a Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 13 of 126 mind, is consistent with a residential collector road when, in fact, it's a major collector road -- or designated as a collector road -- well, Vanderbilt Beach Drive is designated as a collector road. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, it just seems to me that you're going to have a bunch of people using that as a shortcut so they don't have to use the main signal. MR. OLIVER: And that's the objective. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: That's the objective, okay. MR. OLIVER: Yes, because we want to move the through traffic, the vehicular traffic, away from all of the pedestrians that are crossing and using Gulf Shore Drive at Vanderbilt Beach Road. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And redirect it into a residential area? MR. OLIVER: That's why it's important to make those plans now to start setting up and making the improvements consistent with such a strategy. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: I don't know why you'd want to dump a bunch of traffic like that in a residential area. I'm sure those people that are living now aren't even aware that you -- what would happen to them if you did that or what you're suggesting anyway. There's always issues with traffic in a residential neighborhood here, and it's always an issue, and it's an issue here on this board. So -- go ahead, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, Mr. Oliver, I respect your opinion but totally disagree. I don't think it would make any sense to move traffic through that area, especially, if these buildings are built, the residents of those two northern units will most likely be crossing the street to visit the amenities in the main building. Again, if the -- if it is built. And I would believe that this area's best as a walking area rather than moving traffic through there. I totally disagree with your approval to move traffic through that area. And I'm not looking for a response. I'm stating it on the record. No need to respond. I am looking forward to the -- Mr. Banks responding because I'd like to hear his opinion. MR. YOVANOVICH: May I ask a question? I don't want to cut anybody off. Have you all asked? (No response.) MR. YOVANOVICH: If we were to do a commercial project there, are you advocating that we run all the commercial traffic that comes to that center through South Bay? MR. OLIVER: I think there's -- here's the point. The objective -- I have seen situations, for example, on County Road 30A up in the Panhandle where, when you mix pedestrians and vehicular traffic, it can really become a serious mess. I think whether it's a C-3 development or it's the proposed One Naples development, an alternative solution with where you can make use of public right-of-way to improve public safety, yeah, I think it needs to be more thoroughly represented. MR. YOVANOVICH: Who do you represent? Who hired you? MR. OLIVER: The Vanderbilt Beach -- Save Vanderbilt Beach group. MR. YOVANOVICH: Save Vanderbilt Beach is your client? MR. OLIVER: Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: Do you know if Save Vanderbilt Beach actually talked to anybody at Barefoot Pelican about your proposed recommendation? MR. OLIVER: They are aware of what I've recommended. I don't know if they have talked to people. I believe Barefoot Pelican has representation on this group. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Well, I'm looking forward to hearing from them saying they advocate all that traffic going in front of their condominiums. MR. OLIVER: Again, we're getting sidetracked. The fundamental issue is, inadequate public parking creating congestion on Vanderbilt Beach Road. When the infrastructure's inadequate, why -- how can you justify increasing the intensity on the property? 5.A.a Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 14 of 126 CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Karl? Mr. Fry, do you have a question? COMMISSIONER FRY: I think what -- one takeaway from this, I believe what you're describing is something that would take definitely, I think Rich's point also, a lot more vetting than we're able to do here on the fly in a Planning Commission meeting. But the one point that I think that -- I believe you raised what I think is a valid concern, is the complexity of that intersection under the current design opposite the parking garage where people are trying to leave One Naples going left primarily in front of potentially a row of cars waiting to get into the parking garage. And so I do think that point is worthy of investigating, and so I just bring that up. MR. YOVANOVICH: I will. And, Mr. Fry, that will part of our rebuttal. And I encourage you to also talk to your staff, because I'm sure you're aware, before we get in front of you, we have many, many, many conversations with Transportation staff as to what are the proper access points for projects and how all of the traffic impact should be addressed. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Can I ask a specific question about the applicant that's related to this now? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Sure. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. Right now do you know how many parking spots are on that corner of the site, the public, like, use spots at the -- as it is right now? MR. YOVANOVICH: In the street right-of-way? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No. Like, for people to use, those businesses or -- well, what's that -- the restaurant that's there, and the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: DaRuMa. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- realtor? MR. YOVANOVICH: DaRuMa is the restaurant there, and then -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, roughly, how many spots are there for people to park? MR. YOVANOVICH: Let me see if somebody on my team knows that. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Then how many would be available in the new one that aren't for residents but are for other people using the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Our project will not impact DaRuMa's parking. It has no impact on the existing restaurant. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I guess my thought is that there's actually going to be more parking that would be available to people that aren't living there. MR. YOVANOVICH: That aren't living here? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: That aren't going to be living in the project, that are going to be visiting the project. There's actually parking set aside for them? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, we have -- we have -- all the existing on-street parking on Vanderbilt Beach Road will remain. It will be reconfigured, but we'll have the same number of spots. DaRuMa, the restaurant, it will have all of its existing parking. We will be totally self-parked, obviously, as we talked about this, in our own buildings. We will provide parking for our proposed retail and for our realtor's office. That will be public parking to satisfy those. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. How many spots will that be? MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know the number off the top of my head, but we'll put that in our -- we'll make sure we cover that in our presentation for rebuttal, Mr. Klucik, if that's okay. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. The -- who is the next speaker? MR. YOVANOVICH: I do know the answer, if that's okay. May I come back up? It's a 5.A.a Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 15 of 126 total of 24 parking spaces for those two uses, the retail -- the uses that are open to the general public within our project. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Thank you. MR. FRANTZ: Your next speaker is Sarah Spector, and she has seven minutes. MS. SPECTOR: Good morning. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Hi. MS. SPECTOR: Sarah Spector with Roetzel & Andress on behalf of the Regatta at Vanderbilt Beach Commons Association which represents 410 Collier County property owners. The Regatta has also engaged Greg Stuart, who has previously submitted a planning analysis that's included in your packets, and William Oliver, who has also previously submitted a transportation analysis that is included in your packets. Both have now testified before you as experts in their field. From a legal perspective, the first step in analyzing the request before you is to determine whether the Growth Management Plan amendment is appropriate. Here it is not. Section 163.177 of the Florida Statutes outlines the basis for Comprehensive Plan amendments. It specifically provides that they must, in part, be based on relevant and appropriate data and analysis and surveys, studies, and data regarding the area. As set forth on Pages 4 through 6 of the pre-application meeting notes, the applicant was advised of the importance of providing this information before the application was submitted. Specific emphasis was placed on data and analysis, particularly a market study to demonstrate the change is warranted and the additional inventory is needed. The applicant did not provide this. When advised, after three rounds of staff comments, that the application still failed to include the proper data and analysis to justify and support the amendment, the applicant simply responded on Page 1 of its May 29th, 2020, response by providing an updated document titled "Justification and Supplemental Information." In the section relative to the statutory requirements on Page 7 of the document, the applicant summarily states that we have provided sufficient data and analysis without providing anything further. In its initial sufficiency letter dated June 19th, 2020, staff again reminded the applicant that the application materials failed to address the statutory requirements and, more importantly, failed to provide the data and analysis necessary to justify the request for additional density, which staff classified as a simple ask. Then on Page 6 of the Comprehensive Planning staff report, staff notes that the only data and analysis provided was surrounding heights and densities which falls woefully short of what staff asked for and the statute requires. Staff also notes on Page 7 that a typical residential needs analysis was not provided, assuming the justification document was submitted instead, though it actually provides no justification at all. In the absence of proper data and analysis, the Planning Commission does not have the information needed to approve the GMPA. Accordingly, the GMPA request should be denied. Without the GMPA, even the applicant acknowledges that the rezoning request is not appropriate because the requested density is not permissible with the current Future Land Use designation. Accordingly, the Planning Commission's consideration of the One Naples request should stop there. For argument's sake, even had the proper data and analysis been provided to support the GMPA, the rezoning request cannot be approved because the applicant has not met its burden as established by the Florida Supreme Court case in 1993 of Snyder. It is the applicant who has the initial burden to prove that the proposal is consistent with the Growth Management Plan and complies with all procedural requirements of the Land Development Code. Only then does the 5.A.a Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 16 of 126 burden shift to the county to demonstrate that maintaining the existing designation accomplishes a legitimate public purpose. The applicant uses a "C-3 is worse than One Naples" approach presumably to ensure that staff cannot argue that maintaining the existing zoning classification accomplishes a legitimate public purpose. However, the burden does not shift to the county with this request because the applicant has fundamentally failed to provide substantial competent evidence to support the conclusion that the zoning request is consistent with the GMP or the LDC. Section 4.07.02 of the Land Development Code requires compatibility with established or planned uses of surrounding neighborhoods and property. Policy 5.6 of the Growth Management Plan goes a step further and requires that new developments be both compatible with and complementary to surrounding land uses. The applicant ignores the "complementary to" prong altogether and fails to provide any competent substantial evidence to support the conclusion that the project is compatible with established or planned uses of surrounding neighborhoods. Instead, the applicant simply states that the proposed change will have a significantly positive influence in the neighborhood, will have the effect of raising property values, and will spur further redevelopment in this area without providing any supporting data, much like it did with the GMPA application. Further to Policy 5.6, the zoning staff report specifically states that the PUD ordinance does not limit the number of buildings and units for each tract. There can be no meaningful analysis of the compatible and complementary nature of the project if it is not clear where the buildings will be situated or how many units will be in each. While it does not address the "complementary to" requirement, staff both in the staff report and the presentation provided by the Zoning Division reaches the opposite conclusion as it relates to compatibility. The staff report finds almost all aspects of the project are not directly compatible with the surrounding properties. James Sabo, in his presentation, went a step further and concluded that the proposed building heights and setbacks are simply not compatible, eliminating any question with regard to the staff's position. Staff, in both its report and presentation, goes on to provide alternatives to the Planning Commission that they may wish to consider so the project can be found to be compatible. These alternatives would, for the most part, bring the development standards in line with the current C-3 zoning. With its conclusion on incompatibility and offer of development standards similar to those applicable to the C-3 zoned property, staff has met its burden of demonstrating that maintaining the status quo accomplishes a legitimate public purpose. In conclusion, the applicant has failed to provide necessary data and analysis to support the GMPA and, as such, it must be denied. Even had sufficient data and analysis been provided, no competent substantial evidence has been provided relative to whether the proposal is compatible with and complementary to surrounding properties. Accordingly, the Regatta respectfully requests that you forward a recommendation of denial to the Board of County Commissioners. And I do -- I did reference several documents in my presentation with page numbers. I have those here highlighted because I know Mr. Yovanovich has previously asked where these statements were found, so I brought those, should you want to review them. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm pushing the button. Are you looking at the -- CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Not really, because those have been on from before. I don't know how to work this thing. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 17 of 126 COMMISSIONER FRY: Go ahead, Joe. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Ms. Spector -- and I'm looking for an opinion now based -- what, in your opinion, do you think is compatible? Because this is residential in residential, and it's a multistory building in relation to multistory buildings. And I -- we can go through the details, but I'm not -- I'm not following your logic in regards to compatibility. Of course, you're stating what the staff has stated as well, yet, as I pointed out in previous meetings, the staff did not consider the Ritz, which the Ritz is, to me, right across the street, fundamentally, as well as the Regatta, which, when I stand on that property, there's -- certainly a very prominent structure in that area is the Regatta. So I guess my question is, if this is not compatible, what would be compatible? MS. SPECTOR: Well, to your question, that's not a legal question, and I do not have the background to provide that analysis. But, as I mentioned, Greg Stuart was our planning expert, and it's his -- he's already given the presentation regarding compatibility. With regard to Pelican Bay, I believe all of you have received a letter from the Pelican Bay Foundation that even they don't believe that the Pelican Bay PUD property is compatible and should be considered with regard to this project. And with regard to the Regatta, they have much more significant setbacks than are proposed here. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Let me ask this, then: What are your clients looking for in that area? Because the area is going to be developed. MS. SPECTOR: Sure. And we're not opposed to development. We're just opposed to this development, and we've given -- Mr. Stuart -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Are you looking for the county maybe to buy it to put a water park in? That would be great place for a water park. MS. SPECTOR: I don't believe that's my clients want. What we -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What do they want? MS. SPECTOR: Mr. Stuart did present those -- it was on Exhibit 9 of his presentation -- the alternative that we had suggested that staff has reviewed and is in your packets, and that's the alternative that we would propose be considered by the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But they do understand the restrictions that, because of the new criteria involved in height in the 21 feet they would have to -- the first habitual floor, something that is going to be built there is going to have some relative height to it. It's not going to be -- it's not going to be built at ground level like they see units there now or, I mean, structures there now. It's not -- MS. SPECTOR: I understand that it needs to be built up, but it does not need to be built up to 208 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Got it. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Karl? COMMISSIONER FRY: I think Joe pretty much covered my question, so thank you. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Mr. Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Thank you. All right. So you said that it doesn't meet the requirements, the legal requirements. What specific requirement is lacking, and what do you think would satisfy it? MS. SPECTOR: The Growth Management Plan, Statute 163.177, specifically provides that data and analysis and surveys and additional information needs to be provided to justify the request, especially with regards to a needs analysis for that area, and none of that was provided. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So the data that has been provided, are you saying that there's no data and analysis that's been provided? 5.A.a Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 18 of 126 MS. SPECTOR: The only data and analysis, and staff agrees, is with regard to the height and density surrounding the property. They've provided nothing that shows that there is a need for this project in that particular area. That's one of the main requirements of the Growth Management Plan. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Can you cite the exact line in the statute -- the Growth Management Plan that you're talking about? MS. SPECTOR: Yes. It's 163.177(1)(f), and I believe -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: 163. MS. SPECTOR: .177. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: .177. MS. SPECTOR: One. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: 1. MS. SPECTOR: Subsection 1, sub subsection F. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: F like Frank? MS. SPECTOR: Correct. And there's also in Subsection 4 additional requirements with regard to the surveys and studies. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. Can you just tell me what that F says, which -- MS. SPECTOR: I can grab my -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. I want to know exactly what you think -- what line is not being -- has fallen short as far as the data that's been provided. MS. SPECTOR: If can I grab my iPad that -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Sure. MS. SPECTOR: I apologize. In all of my excitement, I was citing the wrong -- I forgot a number in the statute. It's 163.3177. It's long, so do you want me to read all of it or -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, I just -- give me an example of something that you think is lacking that is mandatory. MS. SPECTOR: It specifically provides that all mandatory and optional elements of the Comprehensive Plan and plan amendments shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and an analysis by the local government that may include but not be limited to surveys, studies, community goals and vision, and other data available at the time of the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan or plan amendment. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. So when I'm sitting here as a Planning Commissioner listening to staff, I think that that's what I've been presented with. MS. SPECTOR: Right. I didn't get to the exact -- there's enumeration of what is meant. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. MS. SPECTOR: I did want to just read the one additional prefatory provision there. To be based on data means to react to in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue. It -- so then the subsection -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So reacting in the appropriate way? MS. SPECTOR: Yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So it's a question of whether -- how we react and whether it's appropriate, so -- MS. SPECTOR: Well, you can't react to something that hasn't been provided. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. MS. SPECTOR: So Subsection 1 provides that this information is to include surveys, studies, and data utilized in the preparation of the Comprehensive Plan. May not be -- oh, sorry, that's -- the Comprehensive Plan shall be based upon -- this is sub Subsection 3. The 5.A.a Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 19 of 126 Comprehensive Plan shall be based upon permanent and seasonal population estimates and projections which shall either be those published by the office of economic and demographic research or generated by the local government based upon a professionally acceptable methodology. They haven't provided anything of that sort, and that's where you get the residential needs analysis staff, in their staff report, specifically says no residential needs analysis was provided as is typical with an application -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So we can't -- are you asserting that a landowner can't develop a project unless the county says there's a need for it? MS. SPECTOR: Well, you at least have to -- that's what the statute says. You at least have to provide the information, and then it says based on the information, you know, must -- the decision must be clearly based on appropriate data. It doesn't say one way or the other, but you have to at least have the information. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. And what is lacking? What should I have in front of me that I don't have in front of me? MS. SPECTOR: A residential needs analysis at the very least. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Residential needs analysis to see if we have population that would fill those homes? MS. SPECTOR: In this -- and if it's needed in this particular area. That's what the statute specifically requires. And staff -- as I mentioned, in both the pre-application notes, in three sufficiency letters, and in there -- the sufficiency letter and the staff report have all -- have, each time, said you have not provided the data and analysis required by the statute. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, what I would like to see as a commissioner is -- that I would like to see -- or hear from our staff to see whether or not -- you know, how we address that specific issue, if it is at issue, if it's still unclear as to whether, you know, that standard has been met. I just think that it -- you're saying that you would go with -- I mean, you, yourself, said, well, it's just too high. Well -- MS. SPECTOR: That's not all I said. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Oh, I know. But the whole point of it is you were in insinuating that it wouldn't be a problem if it was -- you know, the scale of the project was a little bit, you know, less massive or tall, which indicates that the need thing seems to be -- you're throwing it out there to stop things up, not really because you think it's a real impediment. Now, I'm certainly not questioning your character, but it seems like an argument that isn't very strong because what you're saying is there's no need for housing in that area. And that just -- you know, essentially, and I don't think that that's a plausible argument. MS. SPECTOR: I'm not saying that at all, but this is a legislative change that needs to be supported by, as the statute says, data and analysis, and just to -- in case there was any confusion, I was only responding to Commissioner Schmitt's question regarding height. That's not the only issue that we have with this, as Mr. Stuart had addressed in his presentation. As -- in the conclusion of my presentation, I did specifically ask that you deny it because it is not in a position to be approved. Should the Commissioners -- I was asked again by Mr. Schmitt, and I believe Mr. Fry was going to ask as well, if the Commissioners do approve something, what would you approve of, and that's where I mentioned that we have presented an alternative. But I don't think we even get there, because they haven't met -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Does your alternative show that there's a need for housing there? MS. SPECTOR: We don't have to provide that analysis. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I know, but you just mentioned an alternative, right? MS. SPECTOR: Right. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. And what is that alternative proposal? What -- 5.A.a Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 20 of 126 MS. SPECTOR: Well, we -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No. Just answer my question. MS. SPECTOR: I was -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: What is that alternative proposal? What does it consist of? Just one sentence. MS. SPECTOR: Well, I will tell you that the -- my clients -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Is it a residential building? It's the one where they had the stepped -- the stepped heights or -- MS. SPECTOR: My clients would actually prefer that it be C-3; it would stay the way that it is. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: But you mentioned the alternate proposal, and that was this alternate way of doing something similar to what's being proposed. MS. SPECTOR: Yes. It has greater setbacks. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. MS. SPECTOR: And it is -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So then you're getting into the details and the need issue -- (Interruption by the stenographer.) COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Sorry. Okay. So the need issue then goes away? MS. SPECTOR: I don't say it goes way. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. MS. SPECTOR: If the commissioners don't have -- don't find that it's an issue and are going to approve something and it's not going to stay C-3, that's why we've presented an alternative. I don't think you get to the alternative. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I'll conclude -- I appreciate that. I conclude that I would like to hear -- and I assume maybe my peers would as well. I would like to hear from the applicant regarding that specific issue regarding need and then from our staff. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Can I ask? I think there's some confusion. Those sections that you're referring to apply to somebody that wants to change the Growth Management Plan, I assume, not to somebody who wants to develop their property in accordance with the way it's currently zoned, right? MS. SPECTOR: Correct, but they're asking to change the Growth Management Plan. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I understand that. But I -- I heard something in one of the questions that made it sound like it was -- it was a question that related to staying with the existing zoning. I just wanted to clarify it, and you answered another confirmation that I was looking for, is your client would prefer to stay with -- because we're going to vote on the Growth Management Plan first. So your client would prefer to have C-3 over what is proposed in the second petition that we have to look at? MS. SPECTOR: Yes, that's why we're asking that you deny. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. Just wanted to make sure. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And to follow up. So you'd rather have the C-3 than the modified proposal that your client is suggesting? MS. SPECTOR: Yes. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I'll go on that point because, as I said, in the last meeting, be careful what you ask for; you might get it. The C-3 would be far more traffic -- adverse traffic impact than residential. I mean, if we were to build something down there that would be an attractor of folks to go down there to multiple restaurants, a boathouse, and commercial facility for a dock facility and whatever, I think it 5.A.a Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 21 of 126 would -- far more significant traffic impact, and if it stayed C-3, of course, none of the requirements for improvements would be on the developer. It falls back on the county. But -- so I just want that on the record. In this case -- and I'm confused, because staff is recommending approval of the GMP. And I think you sort of alluded to that they were recommending denial. But they're recommending approval of the GMP, which is the increase in density, and all the years involved in this business, I, frankly, do not recall ever seeing a market analysis for a GMP for -- in housing. It's always -- the market analysis is typically required for commercial. But the market analysis for residential development is typically the growth model for the county. It's the AUIR. It's the annual growth model. It's the other activity -- or other documents produced by the county that indicates growth and development. I'm puzzled. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't ever remember seeing a needs analysis for any type of GMP requiring an increase in density. MS. SPECTOR: The staff report says "as is typically provided." They did not provide residential data and analysis. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I guess I'll defer to the client's attorney and ask him to address that then. MS. SPECTOR: And I will say there was a recommendation of approval. The letter that I quoted from was a letter that was posted to the application on CityView. It was then removed and replaced with a much more vanilla letter that says this will be a policy decision for the Board of County Commissioners to make and takes out all reference to the fact that the -- the application does not include the data and analysis. But it was a public record, and I was provided with a copy of it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But as it stands right now, it's a recommendation of approval from the staff. Even though you don't agree with it and you think it's vanilla, as you called it, but it still is a recommendation to the board for approval? MS. SPECTOR: Yep. I cannot say otherwise, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: I do have a couple of questions. And I call your attention to Page 5 of the staff report related to the Growth Management Plan amendment. I don't know if you have that handy, Sarah. MS. SPECTOR: I do. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Page 5. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, unfortunately, ours is by either packet page -- MR. YOVANOVICH: You know, for whatever reason, when I printed this out, I didn't get -- MS. SPECTOR: I have copies for you-all if you'd like me to pass them out. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Schmitt, I think it's 1245. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I see there's other page numbers on there. It's the various pages. I love it. But we'll get to it. Page 5. I have the Page 5. MR. YOVANOVICH: You got it. Okay. 217? Heidi says it's 217 in your packet. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: 217, thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. So you quoted Section 163.3177(1)(f), correct? MS. SPECTOR: Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: So you all have it in front of you. Let's look at the actual language. It says, the process for adoption of Comprehensive Plan amendments requires in part that plan amendments shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and analysis by the local government, correct? MS. SPECTOR: Oh, I'm sorry. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 22 of 126 MR. YOVANOVICH: Relevant and appropriate data and analysis. MS. SPECTOR: Now, you're reading from the statute, not from the staff report? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, that's -- I'm quoting the language. They quote the language from the statute in the staff report. MS. SPECTOR: Yes, uh-huh. MR. YOVANOVICH: Relevant and appropriate data and analysis, correct? MS. SPECTOR: Yes, and in the pre-application -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Hold on. MS. SPECTOR: -- they say that it's relevant. MR. YOVANOVICH: But, ultimately, after we -- we had a pre-application meeting, several rounds of discussion and responses to county staff and, ultimately, as I guess the rest of the story, to quote Mr. Oliver, the staff recommended approval of the Growth Management Plan based upon the information we provided, correct? MS. SPECTOR: Yes, but it's not clear why, because in the staff report that was after all of the meetings and all of the applications were provided. It still says that a residential needs analysis was not provided. MR. YOVANOVICH: That -- and you're -- I'm telling you, a residential needs analysis was not provided. No dispute. Let's read the rest of the statute. Under F, it says all mandatory and optional elements of the Comprehensive Plan and plan amendments shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and an analysis by local government that may -- the word "may" we know, as lawyers, is optional, not mandatory. It doesn't say "shall." It says, may include, but not be limited to, surveys, studies, community goals, and vision and other data available at the time of the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan or Comprehensive Plan amendment. Where does it say you shall provide, in order for a Growth Management Plan amendment to be approved, a study as to needs, residential needs analysis, or whatever you think staff initially asked for, was not provided -- we provided other relevant data and analysis, and staff ultimately approved the Growth Management Plan amendment. Where does it say that we had to provide the analysis you're saying that we did not pass go to even be here today? MS. SPECTOR: In Subsection 3 that I had read earlier, the Comprehensive Plan shall be based upon permanent and seasonal population estimates and projections, none of which was provided. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's already in the Comprehensive Plan, and that information is available. MS. SPECTOR: But there was no analysis, and it does provide that it's data and analysis. MR. YOVANOVICH: So you're saying that staff didn't do their job when they reviewed the density analysis we provided to them, the height analysis that we provided to them, the transportation analysis that was provided to them, and all of other -- all the other analyses that we provided; that was not sufficient data and analysis to pass go and be here today? MS. SPECTOR: All I can say is that in every single response to the application and before the application was submitted, even staff said that a residential needs analysis was required. MR. YOVANOVICH: And we get to the end of the story. They did not say that. They said it was not provided, and they still recommended approval. Read the staff report. The staff report says we did not provide that information, but they recommended approval, correct? MS. SPECTOR: Right, but in the sufficiency letter it specifically -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We're past the sufficiency letter. You know -- you've done these. You know, we get letters, we respond to those letters. We have meetings with staff, and what ultimately matters is what does the staff report say, correct? MS. SPECTOR: You look at the application as a whole. MR. YOVANOVICH: And -- okay. Okay. So I just want -- I want you -- you made a 5.A.a Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 23 of 126 statement that the Pelican Bay Foundation wrote a letter of -- in opposition. Can you provide -- MS. SPECTOR: No, it's not a letter of the opposition. It's a letter stating that they are not -- they do not want to be considered and should not be considered -- MR. YOVANOVICH: The Pelican Bay Foundation did? MS. SPECTOR: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can you give me that letter? I've not seen that. COMMISSIONER FRY: I would clarify; it was an email that we received -- MS. SPECTOR: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- that we received. It's not a letter. MR. YOVANOVICH: From the Foundation? COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Not the Pelican Bay Property Owners Association? COMMISSIONER FRY: Pelican Bay Foundation. MS. SPECTOR: Jim Hoppensteadt. MR. YOVANOVICH: All right. They don't want to be considered. Okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: Correct. MS. SPECTOR: No. I just said that they aren't opposed -- they're not saying they're opposed or in favor, but yet -- yes, they do not want to be considered and do not think that they're part of a compatibility analysis. MR. YOVANOVICH: What is the approved setback in the Regatta PUD? MS. SPECTOR: I don't -- Greg had mentioned that in his presentation. I believe it's around -- they're at 50 feet. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. What's the approved -- I asked -- MS. SPECTOR: I don't have the approved. MR. YOVANOVICH: I won't use the line, "would you trust me if I told you" that it's 25 feet? MS. SPECTOR: Sure. MR. YOVANOVICH: Would you trust me? MS. SPECTOR: Sure. On that point. MR. KLATZKOW: That's a terrible idea. MS. SPECTOR: On that limited point I will trust you. MR. YOVANOVICH: I mean, if you want, I'll go ahead and show it to you. I'll put it on the visualizer if you need it. I think that's all I have for Ms. Spector. The rest -- again, I think what she said -- and correct me if I'm wrong, Sarah, is you're relying upon the testimony of Greg Stuart for the compatibility and complementary analysis. You're not providing any testimony on that yourself, correct? MS. SPECTOR: I'm not qualified to. So, yes, I'm relying on Greg's testimony. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I just want to add to the record. The statement you read, the Comprehensive Plan shall be based upon permanent and seasonal population estimates and projections, which shall be either -- what shall either be those published by the Office of Economic or Demographic Research or generated by the local government. We, in the past -- and I would trust now -- who's here from the GMP could probably state it, but we have always done an exhaustive analysis of growth models and growth projections in Collier County. And I believe -- and then it goes on to say that the research generated by the local government based upon professionally accepted methodology. It's the local government that did the population projections. It's part of our GMP, and it's part of the AUIR. That is the population projection. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 24 of 126 Are you questioning the staff's analysis of population projection and your basically -- what I hear you saying is, those studies and that analysis and the AUIR, which is the based off the population projection, is inadequate to project for a GMP amendment for additional residential growth; is the correct what I hear you say? MS. SPECTOR: Not at all. They did not address it in their application at all even though they were asked to. So staff clearly had wanted the applicant to look at that on their own separate from the population and analysis that -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It does not say that in the staff report. They approved the staff -- approved it. I know what you're saying because you're going back to the sufficiency letter. But we're now at the point where staff saying -- and they're nodding their head up and down -- and basically saying, okay, we agree we're not looking for this analysis because there is a population projection. Do we -- are you asking for the applicant just to simply take the AUIR and submit it as -- as a -- as a population projection, or maybe a market analysis of potential sales? I would assume that the applicant, when he planned this, had done some kind of market analysis to do a projection of what sales would be. Would that be adequate? MS. SPECTOR: As I read everything up to the staff report, it was requested from the applicant. So, yes, it should have been addressed in the -- and it's one of the requirements from the statute. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I guess the operative -- the operative word is "should." MS. SPECTOR: Well, it was required. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And then staff went ahead and approved it based on the information that was provided; is that not correct? MS. SPECTOR: It's correct. I don't think that it -- there should have been a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, okay. That's what I was looking for. That's your -- MS. SPECTOR: Based on what the staff report says, not in my opinion that it shouldn't -- based on what the staff report says, it shouldn't have concluded with recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Your legal opinion -- MS. SPECTOR: My legal opinion, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- based on the lack of data, this should not have been approved by staff? MS. SPECTOR: It shouldn't have been recommended for approval, correct. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Mr. Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I was just going to say, all of the finer points or the citations to the legal standard are in the October 1 recommendation letter from the staff. So they clearly are -- the staff's clearly aware of the precise requirements that you're mentioning, and they are either, you know, failing to do their job or they considered them and, you know, have decided, you know, to make the recommendation that they made, which is to approve the GMP change. So my question simply is, why should we -- I mean, are you really asking us to say that they didn't do their job or that they overlooked something? Or what is it that you think -- I'm a commissioner. I'm new, you know. And I'm looking at it, and I'm a lawyer, I want to -- you know, I'm a big guy -- you know, a big proponent of just, you know, you've got the legal standard. It's either met or not, you know, and that's it. So I'm trying to figure out, am I supposed to now say that our staff is doing an inadequate job, or what am I supposed to conclude? MS. SPECTOR: I'm just saying in my -- with -- my legal opinion is that they have not 5.A.a Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 25 of 126 met the statutory requirement, and even if it is concluded that -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: The applicant has not. MS. SPECTOR: The applicant has not. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And the staff overlooked that, or -- MS. SPECTOR: I don't know what the staff did. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: For some reason the staff reached a different conclusion, I think. MR. YOVANOVICH: As I mentioned -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And you're trying to turn that into a -- you're arguing that they need to reevaluate or reassess their decision? MS. SPECTOR: As I mentioned, there was a June 2020 sufficiency letter that specifically outlined -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right, right. No, I'm talking about the October 1 recommendation. MS. SPECTOR: I understand. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And that's all. So they made a recommendation knowing full well what the legal standards that you're raising are. So you just are thinking that -- you see -- you see it differently, and you're asking us to see it differently? MS. SPECTOR: They provided nothing between the June 2020 sufficiency letter and the staff -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I'm asking the staff. You want us to doubt our staff's recommendation because you think the staff hasn't properly applied or held the applicant to the standard that's required? MS. SPECTOR: I just think you need to look at the -- MR. KLATZKOW: Can I see if I can clarify this? And correct me if I'm wrong, Sarah. What you're saying is that, as a matter of law the petition is insufficient because it did not include the proper data and analysis? MS. SPECTOR: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: Period. MS. SPECTOR: Period. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. So it has -- forget the staff report, forget everything else. What she's saying is the application itself, as a matter of law, is insufficient to be considered. Now, staff disagrees with that. I'm sure Mr. Yovanovich disagrees with that. That is -- that is the position of her client. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you, Jeff. MS. SPECTOR: And we've been focusing on the Growth Management Plan, but I did also make the point that even if you find that the Growth Management Plan is appropriate, they did not meet the burdens set by the Supreme Court for the Land Development Code amendment -- or the Land Development Code change to a PUD. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm waiting. I'll let you finish. I have a question for you. MS. SPECTOR: That's fine. MR. YOVANOVICH: Isn't what you're really arguing is that you want them to listen to your expert and not listen to my expert in this case? Because experts are, in fact, competent substantial evidence, are they not? Are you saying that Mr. Mulhere's testimony is not competent substantial evidence? MS. SPECTOR: It is, but there was no analysis to back up the statements made as -- with regard to that it's going to improve property values, that it's going to have a positive impact on the surrounding properties. They were just statements. MR. YOVANOVICH: Are you saying that Mr. Banks -- where'd Mr. Banks go? Are 5.A.a Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 26 of 126 you -- MS. SPECTOR: I'm not questioning the transportation. MR. YOVANOVICH: So his -- he's competent substantial evidence, correct? MS. SPECTOR: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Trinity Scott from the county, her testimony, is that competent substantial evidence? MS. SPECTOR: I'm not speaking to the transportation at all. MR. YOVANOVICH: How about the environmental analysis; is that competent substantial evidence that was provided by our experts as well as the county? MS. SPECTOR: I'm just saying that there was -- they were just blanket statements and not supported by anything. MR. YOVANOVICH: You're saying there's nothing in Mr. Mulhere's written analysis that supports anything he said orally? MS. SPECTOR: A lot of it is just, like I said, statements that say this will be good for the neighborhood and it will increase property values but says nothing more than that. MR. YOVANOVICH: And he talked about -- didn't he do an analysis of the heights in the area? Didn't he do an analysis of the densities in the area? MS. SPECTOR: That's the only thing that was analyzed. MR. YOVANOVICH: And is that not competent substantial planning evidence? MS. SPECTOR: Of -- not to support the entire request. MR. YOVANOVICH: So you're saying -- so you're quibbling with the fact that Bob gave an opinion that property values are going to increase? MS. SPECTOR: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Are you quibbling with anything else that Mr. Mulhere said? MS. SPECTOR: Well, any statement that was with regard to the positive impact that it's going to have, and that's a huge part of the compatibility and complementary analysis. MR. YOVANOVICH: So you're -- didn't Mr. Stuart provide the exact opposite testimony with no real data and analysis? If you're going to apply the standard to Bob's analysis, Bob's at least -- he provided backup. We have a disagreement of experts, correct? MS. SPECTOR: We didn't -- no. MR. YOVANOVICH: We don't? Okay. MS. SPECTOR: No. Yes, we have a disagreement of experts, but I'm not agreeing that Mr. Stuart didn't provide competent substantial evidence. MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll let the Planning Commission make that decision. But the legal burden is that we put in the record competent substantial evidence. Mr. Mulhere is a professional planner. He put his evidence in the record. You're not quibbling with his planning testimony, correct? His dollar valuation, you're not -- you're quibbling with, correct? MS. SPECTOR: I don't recall seeing in the application a dollar analysis. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, you said the increase in property value. Let me rephrase. You're quibbling with that testimony from Mr. Mulhere? MS. SPECTOR: Well, it's a huge component of the compatibility and complementary is what impact it's going to have on the surrounding properties, and I didn't see any data and analysis or anything more than just blanket statements. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Any Planning Commissioners have any more questions for Sarah? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Could we have our next speaker, please. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 27 of 126 MR. FRANTZ: Your next speaker is Ralf Brookes. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Before he starts, could I just make a comment? I hope this will be helpful because I am -- like the gentleman sitting next to me, I'm the new guy, and I've tried to listen a lot and -- but I'm -- I'm a little concerned that we're not focusing on -- and I'm certainly not speaking for any other commissioner. But I want to get focused -- to the extent I haven't already concluded things, I want to get focused on what are my biggest concerns about the project. My biggest concern is about the height; my second biggest concern is about the parking, which we are talking about some; third biggest concern about the traffic flow; and then setbacks; and we haven't talked much about water impact. I'm simply saying, as one commissioner, those are my five concerns in that order about this project, and I'm hoping, to the extent the objectors are listening to me, the petitioners listening to me, those are my concerns in that order. And I certainly understand if you need to make a record for what happens after this, go ahead, but I'm just saying that's what I'm kind of dialed into right now. Thank you, Madam Chair. MR. FRANTZ: Mr. Brookes, you have seven minutes. MR. BROOKES: Thank you. Good morning. My name is Ralf Brookes. I'm an attorney. I represent Save Vanderbilt Beach, Inc. I'm going to talk to you today about the legal standards. You have two applications in front of you, which is a little bit confusing to have them at the same time. I'm board certified in city, county, local government law, and I was Deputy Assistant County Attorney for Sarasota County, and I was the land-use counsel for Monroe County, which is the Florida Keys; and I've been city attorney for Bradenton Beach, a barrier island city; St. Pete Beach in Pinellas County, and a little town called the Town of Yankeetown in Levy County where I still am a town attorney; and also Madeira Beach, I was city attorney there in Madeira Beach there for a while, another barrier island city. I've been practicing since 1980, and I've been board certified since 2004, and I've dealt with a lot of Comp Plan amendments and a lot of rezonings. Now, originally it was a bit easier, because the Comp Plan amendments would happen, and then you would have one year to adopt implementing rezonings that would match the Comp Plan. In 2011, the legislature allowed rezonings to be filed concurrent with plan amendments, which works great when it's a noncontroversial project. Everyone agrees, oh, we want to change this little corner here to a much-needed convenience store in a field of residential, and there was no objectors, and then that makes sense. But I think it wasn't well thought out because a rezoning must be consistent with the Comp Plan as it exists on the day that you approve the rezoning. So sometimes what they'll do is make the rezoning contingent upon approval of the Comp Plan. It also mixes up two different things. It mixes up the Comp Plan as legislative. You are actings as the legislature, if you will, of Collier County, or at least an advisory board to the legislature of Board of Collier County. And I don't think that Chairman Fryer should have been recused or objected or removed with regard to the plan amendment. That's a legislative matter. It's not quasi-judicial. So at least for that one, I think he should have stayed. And, again, I don't think his collecting numbers on heights and collecting numbers on setbacks is any different than the questions that you-all are asking. You-all ask questions about specific projects, height, and density, and I don't think it's any different or worse than a chair -- Planning Commissioner Schmitt calling Mr. Yovanovich between these two meetings and asking him to include things in cross-examination. So there's no reason why he shouldn't be here, and I think it's a loss to not have him here, especially on the plan amendment. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 28 of 126 Now, plan amendments are legislative. So you get to vote them up or vote them down for whatever legislative reason you want to. You are not compelled to act on competent substantial evidence. You're not compelled to approve a plan amendment. Even if all the datas and studies are submitted and all the analysis is submitted, you could still deny a Comp Plan amendment for any reason and keep the existing land-use designation. After this case leaves here, it goes to the Board of County Commissioners. And, again, that will be a legislative determination for them on the Comp Plan amendment. If the Comp Plan amendment is not to their legislative liking, then the rezoning can't go forward as-is. They would have to bring in a project, a mixed-use project that meets the current Comprehensive Plan land-use designation and meets the current C-3 zoning. In terms of the rezoning application, there's a two-pronged standard or review. First you have to show it's consistent with the Comp Plan. So even staff and everyone has said, I guess it's not. That's why you need a plan amendment. But even if it is, then you can still deny it if there's a legitimate public purpose for denying it, and that might be asking for a reduction in height from what the applicant has asked for. If there's a legitimate public purpose to do that, that's something you can do, and it's well within your power. And it's for you to discuss with the expert planners from all sides, and your own planning staff; what do you think an appropriate height is with them? But you can also look to competent substantial evidence that's offered by the neighborhood. And after you hear from us, there's going to be a number of public speakers, I believe, probably on Zoom; maybe some in person. A citizen resident can give competent substantial evidence as long as it's fact based. If it's a fact-based observation, you're allowed to consider that. What does that mean? The cases have said -- the Blumenthal case, the Sport Acre case, the Section 11 property case, the Walberg case. There's a bunch of cases. They all say on finding, based on neighbors' testimony and a site map and aerials and photographs of what they experience. All those things can be competent substantial evidence that would uphold a County Commission denial. So you can listen to the people that come up after even if they don't have a planning degree, as long as it's fact based and observation based and they have some things to support it. That's very important, because that's also how you take in community input and community vision. The legislative body, the County Commission, is elected by the residents. They appoint you, in turn, and then you are here in a representative form of democracy to act on behalf of the citizens. So it's important to take that citizen -- citizen input. Now, you also hear a lot about the property private property rights of an applicant, the Bert Harris Act, takings cases, substantive due process cases. It basically comes down to, for Bert Harris, 1995 established the baseline. We're not downzoning a property, so there's no Bert Harris implications. MR. FRANTZ: You have 30 seconds. MR. BROOKES: And we're not taking the property, so there's no takings implication. There's still reasonable uses that are allowed under the existing Comp Plan and under the existing C-3 zoning. So we ask that you take that into account. Again, you don't have to approve the Comp Plan amendment or, in your case, make a recommendation for approval, even though staff has done it. It's up to you as a legislative body to determine whether it's a good thing or a bad thing. Normally, Comp Plans are done by the county itself. MR. FRANTZ: That's seven minutes. MR. BROOKES: They have to review them every seven years, and then there's an EAR where you review them all. Now, the problem happens when the Comp Plans get chipped away bit by bit, piece by piece, parcel by parcel because it's not the community planning staff bringing forward. An 5.A.a Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 29 of 126 applicant is asking to change the Comp Plan. And, remember, it's a Comprehensive Plan for the area that's set by Collier County. They can request, but you should -- in all your plan amendments, does this still fit in with our overall scheme for the county? Is this something we want to do in this location? So I ask that you consider that in your debates and discussions. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Your time is up. Thanks. MR. BROOKES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: I've missed the breaktime, I think. Can you just -- could we save our questions till 15 minutes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just one. Before he leaves, before we go to the next one, I think it would be best to just finish now. One question. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Mr. Brookes, what is the -- what's the geographical area of the Save Vanderbilt Beach, Inc.? What area of Collier County are we talking about? Is it just along Vanderbilt Beach Drive, or is it Naples Park? What's the geographical area? And how many people are we talking about that you represent? MR. BROOKES: Okay. I represent people -- some of our members are directly adjacent and some are two or three blocks away and some might be as far as a mile away. So we have people that are very close for legal standing, then we have people that are in the more general community that are concerned about what's happening in their area, that even a court might find that those particular individuals don't have legal standing. So it's a broad-range community support grass-roots organization. I don't know the exact number of members or exactly where they all are, but there's hundreds. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Because that title indicates that they want to protect the beach, but it's the beach area. MR. BROOKES: Oh, no. Yes, if that's your -- yes, not just the sand beach, although many of them use it. It's the Vanderbilt Beach community area, what they consider to be their area. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And just for the record, because you brought up my discussion with Mr. Yovanovich, the reason I contacted him -- or actually he called me and we discussed -- was because at the conclusion of the last meeting, there was going to be an issue between -- to discuss between Mr. Oliver and Mr. Banks, and I wanted to make sure that both folks addressed the issue of the traffic circle. I mean, that was part -- when we departed, it was made clear that that was going to be where we would reconvene, but of course, I've not heard yet from Mr. Banks. I'm assuming we will eventually. MR. BROOKES: Mr. Oliver did meet with Mr. Banks and talk to him, and he talked to the county transportation people as well. I think you heard a little bit about that already. You'll probably hear more from staff and from Mr. Banks later. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But my question was never answered regarding the acquisition of the property for the traffic circle, but -- MR. BROOKES: I don't know the answer to that question. I know the county has a pretty big transportation budget. There's certain things the county could do even without this applicant that's possible. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Paul? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just a confirmation. I think I heard you say this, but the organization you represent is fine with the existing zoning? MR. BROOKES: Yes. We are fine with the existing land-use designation and fine with the exiting zoning. We'd ask that they both be, as requested, denied. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Karl? 5.A.a Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 30 of 126 COMMISSIONER FRY: Adding on to Commissioner Shea's question, even though that might result in drastic -- dramatically increased traffic compared to what has been proposed? MR. BROOKES: It's possible. We'll have to see what the future holds. You know, we always have the parade of horribles in all the cases I go to. If you don't approve this, you're going to get something worse. And sometimes, very rarely, it happens. Most of the time that doesn't happen. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Madam Chair, just quickly. From your -- I think I know the answer to this. But from your perspective, it is perfectly acceptable, if we want to, to forward a conditional approval to the Board, meaning we approve it but only if the petitioner does "fill in the blank." MR. BROOKES: Yes. Yes, approve or deny or approve with conditions is within your ambit. And certainly you've heard from staff, some of their proposals. You heard from our expert planner, Greg Stuart. I think it's Exhibit 9, Slide 34, if you want, that has some of our proposals for an appropriate height, appropriate setbacks, and that kind of thing. That would be for you to make as an advisory body to the legislative body and the quasi-judicial body. You're hearing it legislative and quasi-judicial at the same time because of this new act that allows things to kind of speed up, but sometimes speeding things up is streamlining, but sometimes it results in some decisions that are -- that are less than perfect procedurally. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Thank you. We'll take a break now. Is 10 minutes enough for you, or is it -- THE COURT REPORTER: Yes, 10 is good. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Till 10:55. (A brief recess was had from 10:43 a.m. to 10:56 a.m.) CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Can you take your seats now. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Do we have a live mic? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: So we were done with Mr. Brookes. Is the next speaker here; Mr. Schumann? MR. FRANTZ: The next speaker is on Zoom; Bill Schumann. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Oh, okay. MR. FRANTZ: And we just need one moment to get that set up. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Madam Chairman, did you get on the -- I guess on the record that I showed up? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Yeah, I'm sure. THE COURT REPORTER: I did. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay, great. It's my ghost is bi-locating and -- CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: You've been speaking, so yeah. I'm sure she put it down the minute when you walked in and the time. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, I will -- I will -- just to clarify, that I did leave Ave Maria at 7:20 this morning. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: There was an accident. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And there was an accident that doubled my travel time. I was actually trying to get here at 8:20 so that I could take care of something else, and that did not work. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: You need a flying car. MR. FRANTZ: Next speaker is Bill Schumann. MR. SCHUMANN: Yes. Can you hear me? 5.A.a Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 31 of 126 MR. FRANTZ: We can hear you. You have seven minutes. MR. SCHUMANN: Thank you. Members of the Commission, my name is William Schumann. I own a unit in the Trieste and a unit in Regatta. First, let me thank the commissioners. We've seen what a tough job you-all have, and we've seen how conscientious you are, so thank you. I've been practicing law for 41 years, and I'm going to talk about one issue: Stock's proposed development constitutes unlawful spot zoning under Florida law. My letters on the subject are in your agenda packets at Pages 797 and 877. Florida counsel for Ken Melkus, who has already spoken at these meetings, provided a letter to you covering this same ground, and it's in your packets at Pages 556 to 560. Save Vanderbilt Beach agrees with my views and asked me to speak on this issue. So the significance of spot zoning, members of the Commission, spot zoning is the elephant in this room. Look at the key metrics requested by Stock: Double the permitted density; double to triple the permitted height; setbacks dramatically reduced from what is required; dramatic reduction in open space. The staff report -- and I'll get to the detail -- agreed in 20 places -- 20 places, that Stock's proposal is not compatible. Stock is asking to build something that the law of Florida prohibits. So what about the law of Florida? Florida Supreme Court in 1956 -- I'm quoting one sentence: Spot zoning is a practice which we and all other courts have universally condemned. The Florida legislature in Section 163.3194(3)(a) codified the prohibition on spot zoning requiring densities and intensities of a proposed development to be consistent and compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. Policy 5.6 of the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan requires a new development, quote, shall be compatible with and complementary to the surrounding land uses. The Florida Appellate Court has defined it this way, quote, one sentence: Spot zoning is the piecemeal rezoning of small parcels of land to a greater density leading to disharmony with the surrounding area and gives preferential treatment to one parcel at the expense of the zoning scheme as a whole. Commissioners, that is this case. And Stock cannot -- let me underline, cannot rely on buildings in the neighboring zones. If you'll think about it, that would make Florida zoning laws meaningless. The zoning issue, this one that we're talking about, would regularly end up with prohibited mass and size and density and uses just because the -- just because the proposed development is near a neighboring zone where the use is permitted. Pelican Bay is a particularly poor comparison, as it is a vastly different community with a vastly different regulatory scheme of controls and constraints. As you heard, Pelican Bay Foundation agreed that what I've described to you is correct, and that letter of theirs is dated -- that I've seen is dated October 30th. The Florida Appellate Court prohibits comparison to other zones, a case called Macchato (phonetic). Quoting one sentence: A comprehensive land-use plan legislatively sets a zoning norm for each zone. And the reason, says Macchato, for that rule, quote, to avoid spot zoning, end quote. And if spot zoning ends up in court, it's tested by what's known as a standard of strict scrutiny. No deference is given to a commission decision. It's a de novo review because it's a matter of law. Now, the staff -- and you've heard and it's been discussed. I'm going to give a couple of -- a few examples. The staff agrees in 20 places in it's report, 20, that Stock's proposal is incompatible and inconsistent with the Growth Management Plan. The County Attorney's Office reviewed and approved the content and legal sufficiency of the report. Just a few of the many examples, Page 5. Quote, due to the request for increased density, 5.A.a Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 32 of 126 the petition is not consistent with the GMP. Page 10, the height of the proposed tower buildings at 208 feet, not directly compatible. Also at Page 10, the proposed setbacks are not directly compatible. Page 11, Tower 1 and 2 scale and massing, not directly compatible. Page 18, Stock's proposed change, I'm quoting here, is not necessary. The property could be developed under the C-3 zone district. That's important; could be developed. And then the next page, the applicant has not provided any evidence that the property cannot be used in accordance with C-3 zoning. Section 163 of the Florida Statutes requires Stock to make that zoning, and the G -- and the GMP amendment pre-application meeting standard comments document that's on your website confirm that that showing has to be required -- has to be made. And the last point -- the last comment on this one, the zoning -- and this is a quote from Page 20. The Zoning Division staff finds that the proposed change exceeds the existing standards for maximum height, setbacks, scale, and massing. So all of the elements of spot zoning are present here. Stock's proposal is massively incompatible and intrusive. It is a square peg, Miami Beach style development, in a round hole community whose zoning rules require Vanderbilt Beach tranquility. If you permit Stock -- what Stock is asking for, you may have no principle basis to say no to the next request that's 30 percent bigger than Stock's, and on and on. There's no benefit to the community here. It's an uncompensated preferential wealth transfer from thousands of residents who relied on the integrity of the zoning rules to a developer who will receive windfall profits. And what about those windfall profits, which is part of the standard on spot zoning, frankly? Stock's asking for 172 units. Only 87 -- only 87 are permitted under the current law. Stock has referenced in the Naples Daily News that the selling -- MR. FRANTZ: You have 30 seconds. MR. SCHUMANN: -- (unintelligible) will be 1.5 to $10 million, so they're going to make windfall profits. This is the poster child for unlawful spot zoning. I'm happy to respond to questions. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Anybody have any? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have a question before Mr.-- Mr. Schulman, is it, or Mr. Sherman? MR. SCHUMANN: Schumann. There's no L. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Schumann. I guess I have no other way to put this, but -- so you -- I understand what you're saying about spot zoning. I've looked at your documents. But for some reason, you're seeming -- seem to indicate that there's something wrong with making a profit in this country. MR. SCHUMANN: No, not at all, not at all. Fair question, but there's an absolute answer to that. Nothing wrong with making a profit; I'm in favor of that. The issue is this: In the many elements of spot zoning, one of the issues -- one of the issues is, is it -- is it an unfair and special, if you will, award compensation giving something to one entity, a developer, at the expense of the community. And in this instance, I -- you know, if I -- whether Stock develops the property this way, which I don't think is lawful, or whether they build one half the size, they will make a fair profit. And I'm fine with that. They should. I understand Stock's an excellent developer. But this is an element of spot zoning when one developer is going to make, for its benefit, a substantial amount to the detriment of the rest of the community. It's absolutely pertinent. So there should be no mistake. I am not saying don't make money. In fact, I think everybody in the room would love a development that's appropriate, and no one's going to build one that doesn't make money. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, based on that logic, would the Trieste be spot zoning or the Regatta be spot zoning? 5.A.a Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 33 of 126 MR. SCHUMANN: No, and that's a fair question, but a definite answer on that. The Trieste is not spot zoning, and let me explain, and I alluded to it in my comments. The Trieste is in a different zone, and the law says that you cannot look at buildings, even if they're 1,000 feet, 500 feet, 1,000 feet. Zoning and lines matter. And if you think about it, that makes total sense because with every zone, with each zone's rules, there's always a zone next to it, and that next zone has different rules. And if you could ignore the boundaries of a zone and simply look at the proximity of a building that is kind of next door or nearby, you'd have no zoning rules at all, because you can always cite the next zone over. The zoning law doesn't permit it. You have to stay within the zone, and you have to see, is it compatible not with the next zone over, but only with respect to what's in the zone. And the whole point of spot zoning is that that's why that's prohibited. And, indeed, the case I cited, I think the name is Macchato, effectively says that. It says you've got to look at the zone. You'd have no laws. You'd have no zoning. You'd have no ability to do what you should do and what you want to do over time because somebody would always say, well, look at the next zone. It's got a garbage dump. Let me put it here. Can't be done. Can't be done under the law. A court would throw it out. That's my humble judgment after 41 years of practicing law. But that's -- that's what the law says. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Schumann, this is Robert Klucik, one of the commissioners. Hello. MR. SCHUMANN: Yes, Mr. Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I really appreciate every citizen who comes to speak at things like this, so I appreciate your input very much. I'm confused, though, as to understanding spot zoning the way you want me to because I just -- if you have a building that's -- well, I'm just using a figure -- that's 100 feet tall east on Vanderbilt and then a building that's 100 feet tall west on Vanderbilt, you're asking me to say that it's spot zoning to then say in between those two buildings that aren't really that far from each other, it would be spot zoning to then increase the allowed use in between that east and west 100-foot-tall building, and it would be wrong, then, to allow a 100-foot-tall building on that land in between the east and west portions. That's what I'm hearing you to say would be spot zoning that's illegal; is that correct? MR. SCHUMANN: I don't think so. I don't think that's correct, although because the way you put it was a little complicated, allow me to tell you what I believe the law says, and that is this: That within a given zone you are permitted to look at buildings in that zone and determine this issue of compatibility. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Sure, sure. I understand that. And I guess -- I think -- and, you know, maybe someone will demonstrate otherwise, but everyone buys land knowing that the zoning can change in -- you know, whether it's the house next to them the zoning could change or, you know, a ways away. But in any event, there's no certainty that the zoning won't change. And so the rules -- in my understanding, the rules that we then are bound by or the decision-making process then -- that's why you're looking at compatibility. And so that's -- the spot zoning argument, I think, you know, in my mind isn't very persuasive. What would you think is a fair height? MR. SCHUMANN: So let me respond to your comment because that's not -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, no, no. I want you to just tell me what you think a fair height would be. MR. SCHUMANN: Okay. I will tell you this -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I'm looking for a number, really. That's it. And if you can't give me a number, then we'll move on. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 34 of 126 MR. SCHUMANN: A hundred feet. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Thank you. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Madam Chair? I would like to hear what Mr. Schumann has to say. If he wants to finish up in responding to Mr. Klucik, I'd like to -- this is Chris Vernon, one of the commissioners. Go ahead and give us your thought just simply in response to his previous question. MR. SCHUMANN: Yes. So the issue is: You are, and the courts say this -- when you're deciding this issue of comparability and compatibility, you are allowed to look at what is in the zone. You also want to look at what's close by, because when you exercise your judgment -- which, believe me, I get. That's what everybody needs to do here -- you're allowed to take into account in determining what your judgment tells you, buildings in the zone and buildings nearby in the zone. The law prohibits you from taking into account the Ritz. Yes, it's close, but it is not in the same zone. And the point I was trying to make before is that's a very logical place to land because, otherwise, you'd have no rules in your zone. You'd have -- all you would do is say, well, wait a minute, there's a big building or a different use, not allowed in your zone, but it's very close, so why not? That's compatible. That's the reason why zoning has lines and rules. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Paul was -- Paul first. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Are we allowed to comment on Commissioners' comments? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Sure. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: This is the only place we can talk to each other. COMMISSIONER SHEA: You said something that really struck a bone with me. You said everyone buys a home with the idea that zoning will change. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, that it could change. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. But I think everybody buys a home with the hope that we, as a commission, will maintain the zoning because it's the organized plan the county has adopted. And so I didn't want -- I didn't want your philosophy to be mixed up with mine. MR. SCHUMANN: And, Mr. Shea, that what -- when he was asking me that -- may I just add something on that? Because while I agree with what you said, what's really important here is this: When you're talking about the equities, to the extent anybody wants to talk about the equities on the fringes because judgment involves a lot of factors, there are no equities for Stock here. To the -- to Mr. Klucik's point, and the way I have seen it in my life, is that a developer can go in and they can buy property contingent on the fact that, you know, we only want it if we can get a zoning change, and you enter into contracts, and you get out of them if you can't get the change. That's a way to do it. You don't have to do it that way. You can do what Stock did which is to buy it with no contingencies. But Stock is the one that bought that property knowing that it could not build this project. They knew it couldn't. And they made a bet. And I'm not saying they should suffer for it. They'll make a lot of money on a project that does comply. I'm simply saying that when Mr. Klucik, with all respect, talks about how the thousands of us are vulnerable because we knew when we bought our places that zoning could change, I would say, respectfully, you have it backwards, and that is that Stock knew when it bought the property it might not be able to do this and probably, if you read the law, couldn't do it. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Mr. Fry? COMMISSIONER FRY: Hi, Mr. Schumann. It's Mr. Fry on the Commission. I think we're in the midst of one of the most relevant and important topics of this whole discussion which is compatibility and where -- how you judge compatibility. Is it purely within the Vanderbilt Beach community, or does it extend into Pelican Bay and Bay Colony, the Ritz, et cetera? 5.A.a Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 35 of 126 Mr. Schumann, you mentioned you have to consider only the zone that a property is in. Is there a definition of what a, quote, zone is? Is there a definition that applies here? We know that Pelican Bay is a master planned community, and Vanderbilt Beach is, you know, much more informal community. But is there a formal definition that defines those two as different zones? MR. SCHUMANN: I don't think I could quote to you a formal definition. What I have seen in the cases and the law, what I believe is what you've got is the Vanderbilt Beach community with rules for its area, and now you've got rules in Bay Colony or in Pelican Bay for its area. The law in Florida, but I will say the law everywhere, is that you have -- the analysis of the compatibility and -- has to be in that context of, given the rules, because they're asking you to change the rules. So the logic, but I believe the law, is that wherever they ask you to change the rules, let's look at the area by which those rules are governed. That's what's important here. You can't look at Pelican Bay with totally different rules and say, well, they've got tall buildings. They do. They've got all kinds of rules that you would have to -- if there were some kind of a notion of comparability, how do you -- apples and tangerines. You'd have to import all the other rules that go with the decision to allow a building of that size overlooking the water. I mean, that's why this -- that's why spot zoning was developed. They had this project in mind, so to speak, because this is what sticks out like nothing else in the community. COMMISSIONER FRY: And I'm unable to really evaluate the concept of spot zoning as a legal -- I'm an attorney -- in terms of a legal concept, but certainly we're looking at this from the standpoint of compatibility and complementary nature. So a very extreme example. And I notice Mr. Yovanovich just standing there, so I'm going to -- maybe this is a good time to get your thoughts on this. New York City, Central Park, across the street is the Plaza Hotel and a whole line of high-rises that bound Central Park on all sides. Central Park has a zoo. It has performance venues. It has lakes, and you can take paddle boats and that kind of thing. But I guess my question is, could you apply and build a high-rise within Central Park because across the street are high-rises? So I think it's a good opportunity to get your thoughts on why we should be considering Pelican Bay and Bay Colony, the Ritz, in the compatibility analysis. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think -- MR. SCHUMANN: Mr. Fry, that's again -- let me just -- to the extent that that was put -- listen, I'm -- CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Excuse me. MR. SCHUMANN: -- distanced. So to the extent that that was -- CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Mr. Schumann? MR. SCHUMANN: Yes. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: He was speaking to Mr. Yovanovich. MR. SCHUMANN: Oh, forgive me. I could not tell from my picture. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: That's okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: If you'd like to -- if you have thoughts afterward, then I'm okay with that. But Mr. Yovanovich is ready to speak. MR. SCHUMANN: Sure, sure. MR. YOVANOVICH: Actually, I was ready to ask Mr. Schumann some questions, but I'm happy to speak to that question. I think you have focused the question on what is the appropriate area to look at in considering compatibility and whether something is compatible and complementary. I think I fundamentally disagree with the conclusions of the current speaker as to spot zoning and what you can consider in spot zoning. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 36 of 126 You can look at what's around. And you get -- the beauty of it is you, as the legislative body, will decide what you think is the appropriate area to take into consideration in changing the Comprehensive Plan and, ultimately, the zoning on the property. That's what it's going to come down to. So you're hearing some of my closing argument. You get to make that decision. You are not limited to saying Central Park is a park and it can never be anything but a park if a property owner brings an application to rezone a corner of Central Park near the Plaza Hotel and say, I want to put a hotel on that corner just like the Plaza Hotel. I don't know New York law. I don't know if they have a Comprehensive Plan. They may have to go through the same process we're going through now. But it is not spot zoning to say the park has to be the park forever, and you can't consider other development around it. That is it. If I can, I do have some questions for Mr. Schumann regarding the concept of spot zoning and his testimony. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: So, Mr. Schumann, I just want to understand a question -- or I have a question for you. What's the zoning for the Regatta? MR. SCHUMANN: If you're going to ask me the details of the zoning, I don't -- I couldn't give that back to you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. So you don't actually know -- MR. SCHUMANN: Let me say this: My understanding is it's C-3, but I don't -- none of the -- that doesn't impact on my analysis. But I can't tell you the zoning of -- MR. YOVANOVICH: So your analysis is once you have zoning on your property, anything you want to develop on that property has to be consistent with the existing zoning standards on that piece of property? MR. SCHUMANN: Well, under the law, it's got to be -- the language that's in the statute is consistent and compatible. So I would say to you that when you want to -- when you need a variance, it's got to remain consistent and compatible. MR. KLATZKOW: Let me -- let me just -- this is not a variance. MR. SCHUMANN: No, no, no. I understand. MR. KLATZKOW: The applicant is asking -- the applicant is asking for a Comprehensive Plan amendment. MR. SCHUMANN: Right. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. There are legal standards as to whether or not a Comprehensive Plan amendment can be granted. It is my opinion that once those legal standards are met and a board has made a decision, there can be no spot zoning, okay, because at that point in time, you've gone through a public -- you've gone through a public process, you have met all the criteria, and at that point in time, whatever gets developed on that property will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. And so there are a lot of cases on spot zoning, and they tend to be in places that do not have Comprehensive Plans and that predate the Comprehensive Plan process in Florida. That is just my opinion on this one. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I -- thank you. I agree 100 percent with his opinion. But I want to make sure, for the record -- I have a lawyer attacking my petition, so I just want to make sure I understand his question. So if I have agricultural zoned property, am I required to come in and pick a zoning category that is consistent with the development standards of the agricultural zoning; otherwise, it would be, quote, spot zoning? MR. SCHUMANN: I'm not sure I understand the question, but -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, let me rephrase it then. You said I have to pick something that's consistent with the development standards of C-3 zoning to not be spot zoning, correct? 5.A.a Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 37 of 126 MR. SCHUMANN: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. So if I'm -- hang on. So my next question is, if I have a piece of property that's zoned ag and I want to rezone that property to something other than ag, am I required to meet the development standards in the agricultural zoning district; otherwise, in your legal interpretation, I would be spot zoning? MR. SCHUMANN: I would not go that adamant, no. MR. YOVANOVICH: Why not? You just told me I have to meet the C-3 zoning standards. Why wouldn't you also apply it to something that's already zoned ag? MR. SCHUMANN: Because the law, it remains the same. It's got to be -- when you're -- the statute refers to densities and intensities. That's what we're talking about here. If you're going to switch topics and switch to an agricultural use, you have to -- you still have the same standards. There is -- there's always -- there's always discretion, and the commissioners have discretion to -- it doesn't have to be exact. When you're talking about issues that are, say, building heights, say, setbacks. You've got issues where if it's -- if the building height is 75 feet, you can always ask for 80 and 85 feet. You show a good reason, you're going to get it. If you ask for something that's inconsistent and incompatible -- and there may be some judgment because people have to think about it and decide is the request consistent and compatible? Within reason, it's going to be allowed, and when it's not within reason, it's spot zoning. And in this context, in this context, when you go triple -- double the density and double the -- triple the height, a court of law, I believe, under Florida law, would say it is spot zoning, notwithstanding any other example. Talking about what we have here, this is spot zoning. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. So let me ask you this: What's the existing zoning for the Barefoot Pelican condominium that's in the same zone? MR. SCHUMANN: Yeah, I can't tell you the answer. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, you know, if I were to tell you that it's 45.8 units per acre, do you have a reason to doubt me? MR. SCHUMANN: I don't have reason to doubt you. I won't adapt it, but I don't have reason to doubt you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. So is 31.7 units per acre compatible with 45.8 units per acre? MR. SCHUMANN: I would say to you that if the law were as -- if the law were 31 rather than the current 16, but if the law were the 31 and you came in and asked for 34, I think you're probably right. If you asked for 404, I'd say no. Where the line is is not always immediately known. And indeed, that's why folks like these commissioners use some judgment. When you get to double and triple, there is no judgment here. Under the law, when you talk about density -- when you've got a law that says 16 and you go to 32, when you talk about 75 feet and you go to 208, my belief is that that's the analysis -- you have to -- you have to contrast that to consistent and compatible, and then don't forget there's the open spaces and all the other issues but -- in the density, but that's what you're comparing. When you're going to go slightly above and ask for permission, there's a lot of ways to get there. And so if somebody says the law is 75 and you asked for 85, you asked for 100, you know, in that area, judgment says fine, it's not spot. Zoning, when you ask for double and triple, it's spot zoning. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Could I ask a question, Mr. Yovanovich? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Based on the point you just made, I guess I'm confused as to -- and it's really what I already brought up, but I'll be more specific because I found the numbers. So Regatta is right adjacent to this project, and it's 148 actual feet high. And I'm just 5.A.a Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 38 of 126 trying to figure out how it would be spot zoning to then have on the -- basically, the adjacent parcel to be something that was 148 high, or even based on what you just said, well, maybe, you know, 180 feet high. You know, not 400 feet high but, you know, even a little bit higher than the adjacent property would then be compatible. I'm just trying to figure out how -- what is the logic you're asking us to apply? Because even -- or even the law. If we look at the project -- or the properties that are adjacent to this parcel both east, which is 148 feet and then west, which is the Beachmoor, which is 127 feet, I'm just trying to figure out how on earth we could justify or even, you know, under your definition how we could say, well, that would be spot zoning to allow 148 feet. Do you understand my -- the question I'm asking? MR. SCHUMANN: I do. And to be clear, nothing that I said would justify the 180 as was implied in your question. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, let's stick with 148 which is the actual height of Regatta at Vanderbilt Beach. MR. SCHUMANN: Yes. And the answer, in my mind, is that what we're dealing with right now is rules that allow for 75 feet. We've got an analysis by the -- by the -- not only by Save Vanderbilt Beach's experts, but the planning staff that talks about you could go to 125. If you did the -- if you did the -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No. I'm just going to your spot zoning argument which seems to be the -- you know, something that you emphasized. How is it spot zoning to say that that whole strip of land from the first project, you know, to the east of this -- this proposed project, and if you go along Vanderbilt Beach and then you go to the Beachmoor on the west, why would it be incompatible or even spot zoning? I guess, really, why would it be spot zoning to say in between those two pieces -- those two tall buildings, that you can't have a building that's the same height? What's your reason to say that that's spot zoning, that would be -- the law is trying to avoid when -- when the two adjacent uses are the same height? MR. SCHUMANN: Because the analysis is you don't compare it to simply one building and then say, fine. You compare it to the community and the average -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. And those two -- are you arguing that those two buildings aren't in the community? MR. SCHUMANN: The -- which two? The Regatta -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: The Regatta and -- which is 148, and the Beachmoor, which is 127. MR. SCHUMANN: Yeah. No, I think that in an analysis of the community, you take those along with the other buildings that demonstrated that the norm, if you will, is more like 100, give or take a little. You don't look at the high and the low. You look at the norm, and the norm isn't the highest. If you did that, you'd have no stopping it, because this one would go up at 130, and the next one would be 160, and the next one would be 180, always because it's incrementally a little bit bigger than the biggest one you can find. The community is average of pertinent buildings. The studies that we have done demonstrate that it's more like 100. Many of the buildings are less. There's a few that you've mentioned that are more. And the notion that 208 feet fits in there is impossible is spot zoning under the law. That's my view. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Thank you. MR. SCHUMANN: I don't think there's any question about it. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Mr. Yovanovich, are you -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I think -- I think I'm done. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah, Madam Chair, can I ask a question of 5.A.a Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 39 of 126 Mr. Schumann? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Sure. COMMISSIONER VERNON: All right. Did you hear -- and I'm not sure he identified himself -- but Attorney Klatzkow, County Attorney, explain, because we're amending this, and if I understand his argument, that technically this would really not be spot zoning, and if that's true, then the case law you're citing would not seem to be applicable? And I just wanted to give you a chance to respond to that if you'd like to, and at least as to my understanding of the ying and yang of what you talked about and what Mr. Klatzkow -- Attorney Klatzkow talked about. If you can respond. MR. SCHUMANN: Yes, I can. And we -- you know, in fairness, we differ some here. I don't believe it's two-part so that you get around spot zoning as a problem by adjusting the rule and then saying, okay, now it fits within the rule. Spot zoning says, look at the community and take a look at what you've got compared to what you want to build, and a device -- and I don't mean that in a pejorative way, but a device to get you there is an unlawful device to get you there. You look at the community. Somebody wants to put in a development. You've got to compare it to the community. If all you do is change the rule to allow you to do it and then say now it's consistent with the rule, with respect, I don't believe that's the law. I believe a court would look at that, they'd look at the numbers here, and they'd say, you're putting -- you're going to put up a 208-foot building with 35-foot walls and no setbacks and then take away all of the open space, you're going to change all the rules for that one five acres of -- owned by one developer when the entire community is going crazy? No. I think they cannot do it under the law and, with respect, I don't think you can get around that law. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And are you referencing -- just so I understand, are you referencing Florida law? MR. SCHUMANN: Florida law. Florida law. It is the law everywhere, but I will tell you that the law everywhere can vary, and the case law can vary. I am confining my comments only to Florida law, the statutes and the cases. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Thank you, Mr. Schumann. And just to follow up, if you want to, if any response from petitioner's counsel or Attorney Klatzkow, if I understood the question that I've framed, to get your thoughts. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. Just for clarity here, this is not a fact witness, all right. This is someone who is giving a legal opinion that this is spot zoning; it should be designed. But this is not a court, all right. That opinion -- if he's right, he'll have a chance to bring that on a challenge. The role of the Planning Commission is to review this application, okay. It's a dual application. The public petition seeks an amendment to the Comp Plan, and then at the same time, the Comp Plan amendment, a PUD amendment. That's the criteria you're looking at. It's my legal position that you cannot have spot zoning on a legal Comp Plan change. That's the end -- that's the end of discussion. In essence, Florida allows legal spot zoning through this process. That's what we're doing here. So that -- I understand the argument. Don't agree with it, but that's fine. But the argument is misplaced in this particular venue. The appropriate place for that venue is in the Circuit Court on a challenge to this application, should a challenge come right down to it. Similar to your earlier speaker, Sarah, they were legal positions, okay. We spent two-and-a-half hours talking about legal issues but, really, that's not what you're here to do. You're here to analyze the facts that are presented for you, whether it's traffic reports or people talking about the appropriate density or the building height in connection with the applicant's request to change the Comp Plan, whether it is appropriate. And so we're sort of like getting off track here. We've been off track here really all morning. Instead of focusing on, well, quite frankly, the people who live there and say, how is 5.A.a Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 40 of 126 this going to impact you and hearing that, we're listening to attorneys arguing that the whole thing is unlawful. And, okay, but that's not what we're here for. That's not what the Board of County Commissioners will be doing. That would be for the province of a Circuit Court judge down the road. We're just following a process here, and at the end of the day, these speakers are outside that process. COMMISSIONER VERNON: No, you answered my question. I appreciate that. I just don't want to send something up that's going to be reversed by a court of law, clearly. That's why I wanted to get your legal opinion. MR. KLATZKOW: Look, this is obviously a contentious matter, and I have little doubt that it will be litigated, which is the primary reason I asked Mr. Fryer to step down. He doesn't need to get embroiled in this on, really -- well, sideshow issues. COMMISSIONER VERNON: You answered it. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. We're done with Mr. Schumann, right? COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: You're asking something else. Thank you, Mr. Schumann. MR. SCHUMANN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Karl, you have a question for -- COMMISSIONER FRY: I just wanted to say that, you know, six months ago I was the new guy on the Planning Commission. Now there are three people that are newer than I, although you're very experienced people in life, but I think we're -- I think we -- as Mr. Klatzkow said, we're maybe making the -- we're overcomplicating this. I wish you had said that about two hours ago. I thought those were very insightful comments. MR. YOVANOVICH: Me, too. COMMISSIONER FRY: You know, so the way I look at it is we have the Comprehensive Plan, and the applicants -- and this is a nonlegal opinion. Applicants come in, and they say, we want to change it, but we want to change it with such -- with Justifications A, B, and C: Less traffic than what would have been there, more better beneficial -- more beneficial to the county, more beneficial to the people that live in the area, and it's our job, simply, to weight those things, and it doesn't have to be legal to say, we think that makes sense. This is actually better off -- this is better for the county and the residents overall, big picture. The balance sheet weighs in their favor or it doesn't. And so I think that we're -- Chris, I thought what you mentioned, your criteria, the things that you're looking to hear about, I share many of those things, maybe with a couple more. But I believe, yeah, I'd like to hear from the residents, how is this going to impact you? Why is it a bad decision? If that's your position, why is it a bad decision for Collier County? For Vanderbilt Beach? And the opposite -- the opposite from the applicant. And so we can, like I said -- but we have the latitude to say this makes sense to us or it doesn't, and to me it's that simple. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Our next speaker is Mr. Bamberger. MR. BAMBERGER: My name is John Bamberger, and you'll be happy to know I'm not an attorney, and I am a resident. I live full time in Collier County, and I reside at the Regatta. The developer's stated goal was to complement the unique characteristic of Vanderbilt Beach area while enhancing and enriching the neighborhood. The proposed development changes that they're asking for does no such thing. The reason I am here today would be based on their request for the setbacks and ratio to the actual building heights. Current C-3 zoning requires actual building height to frontage at a setback ratio of 50 percent with a minimum of 25-foot. So a 100-foot building would require a 50-foot setback; a 35-foot building would still require the 25-foot setback. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 41 of 126 The streets front -- front-street setbacks and the building height do go hand in hand. And when they're done correctly, they provide open views, green space, sunlight and, most importantly, a sense of security. This is why we have zoning codes. This is why they are written to complement any neighborhood, not just the Vanderbilt Beach neighborhood. But the Vanderbilt Beach neighborhood is a good example of how this has been done correctly. In a previous presentation on the 15th, the average actual building height in Vanderbilt Beach neighborhood was 80.5 feet. The average setback was 49 feet, which is a 60 percent ratio, far exceeding the C-3 regulations. If you'd like to use Regatta, where I live, the Regattas, it would be much higher. Regatta has 147 -- or excuse me, 148-foot building but it sits 150 feet back from Vanderbilt Beach Road. Also, when Salvay (phonetic) designed the Regatta, at the back corner of the -- it would be the western -- far western angle of the Regatta, Building 1, it was designed at an angle. We have Barefoot -- what is it, Pelican Barefoot or Barefoot Pelican right behind us. When they did this angle, it basically allowed their views of the bay to still exist. It also, very importantly, increased the back/front setback. So we're very -- I don't know the exact measurements as far as how far are we back from Barefoot Pelican, but we are back well over the C-3 zoning. Under the current zoning plans, what they're requesting for their 208-foot towers would be -- would require 104 feet. They're asking for 35, which is only 12 percent. The 77-foot mid-rises would require 38.5 feet; they're asking for 15, which is 19 percent. And on the Bayfront, 87 front mid-rises would require 43.5 feet; they're asking for 10, which is only a 12 percent ratio. In the previous meeting on October 15th, Stock did say that in the rebuttal they would provide you with actual setback footages using drones, which hopefully they will do that today. But I would also ask you to include the ratios of the setbacks to the proposed building, actual building heights. The setbacks that are requested for the two towers are not compatible with anything in the existing neighborhood, not on Gulf Shore Drive, not on Vanderbilt Drive, or not on South Bay Drive. These towers would block the views of up to 42 units at the Regatta. That will reduce their value. People there invest, and they want their investment. When I purchased there 10 years ago, I did see the vacant lot. I did specifically ask our real estate agent how it was zoned. I was told. I know things can change. Not this drastically. The 77-foot mid-rises along Vanderbilt Beach Road would create a wall hundreds of feet long and set back 15 feet from the road. If you can imagine all the tourists that come and walk down Vanderbilt Beach Road every day, hundreds of them, they'll be in a shadow, because that wall will be way up here. They'll be just doing that. It doesn't look good. And I don't care how much landscaping they do. There's no way you're going to hide a 77-foot building with only 15 feet of landscaping. The Bayfront mid-rises, 87 feet tall with only a 10-foot setback. That would create, in my opinion, a fortress. If you're walking down -- I walk my dog down South Bay every day of the week. We walk down there, and I'm looking at 87-foot 10 foot away, which is about from here to here, 87-foot-tall, it will look like a fort. Also, on the bay front, they're only asking for a zero to 12-foot setback from the water. You boat around Vanderbilt Lagoon. There's nothing on the water like that. Everything is set back. You have mangroves or boat docks, but not right on the water. The mid-rise bay-front buildings would also dwarf the neighbors, of course, in Barefoot Pelican, the Palms, and also at the Regatta they would block the views, the bay views, of up to 24 more units as we look out, basically, to the northwest. Bay-front buildings should be reduced and no than an actual height of 60 feet, and the setbacks should be increased to conform to the rest of the neighborhood. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 42 of 126 The Vanderbilt Beach neighborhood does exceed, though not required, all the setback ratios of C-3 zoning. Permitting the zoning changes would not only be incompatible with the Vanderbilt Beach neighborhood, but it would be incompatible with anywhere in Collier County. I've asked. There is nothing with a 12 percent height-to-setback ratio. So I would ask you right now to basically turn down the request. Something like this, as dense as this would be in just the building part, would make it look like Miami. You can go over there. You can see the high-rises or downtown Chicago or wherever. That's not what we want in our neighborhood. There are some alternatives that have been put out there. James Sabo had a wonderful -- his first original, I should say, alternative proposal would be acceptable. I think the Vanderbilt Beach association or Save Vanderbilt, those will be acceptable -- MR. FRANTZ: You have 30 seconds. MR. BAMBERGER: -- and I think, basically, the C-3 zoning that's currently there would be acceptable. Thank you for your time. And, again, I'm a resident talking for myself and my family and very concerned with what's going to happen to our neighborhood. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Thank you. Karl, do you -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: One comment. COMMISSIONER FRY: Joe can go ahead. I'll go next. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. John. MR. BAMBERGER: Bamberger. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Bamberger. But you do understand, you talked about the setback of the towers. The setback is actually from the tower, not from the garage. MR. BAMBERGER: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So you -- MR. BAMBERGER: That's what I said, 35 feet from the tower, not the garage. The garage is 25 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Twenty-five feet, okay. Because that -- you were somehow alluding -- I thought I heard you say because of the height of the tower, the setback should be half the height of the tower. MR. BAMBERGER: Under current zoning, a 208-foot-high building would have to have a setback of 104 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. Okay. MR. BAMBERGER: Yeah. And like I said -- and then I mentioned the Regatta, even though it's 148 feet, we're 150 feet back from Vanderbilt Beach. So I'm saying it's just of -- completely out of the character, the ratio, and that's what's very important. It's just not the height and the set -- it's the ratio. And I think that's just so much more like Miami and certainly not like Naples. It's not why we moved here. And I thank you all for your time. I appreciate it. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Bamberger, I have a question for you. MR. BAMBERGER: Sure. COMMISSIONER FRY: First of all, you forgot to cite the specific Florida Statutes that you were -- MR. BAMBERGER: I know nothing about -- like I said, I'm a resident. I've been here for nine years and -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. I mean, I think we got back to what we're looking to hear from residents. I appreciate that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is that a form of levity? 5.A.a Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 43 of 126 COMMISSIONER FRY: Poor attempt at levity. MR. BAMBERGER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: So let me ask you this: So what would you -- so if it was C-3 and it could be built up to 75 feet, if it was the alternative plans proposed by Mr. Sabo with, like, the 125-foot maximum height, the alternative proposed by Mr. Stuart, which I think a couple -- 12-story and a 9-story, I can't remember exactly, but we'll go through again, what would you -- wouldn't those still block the views of significant numbers of Regatta -- MR. BAMBERGER: Not really. Basically, at the Regatta, when you're on Floor 7 through 12, in Building 1 that is, you have a gulf view. On the bay front, if they want to go 87 feet, it's going to block the bay and gulf views for Floors 7, 8, 9 and possibly 10. The winter, also when the sun sets, it's basically -- as it moves south in the winter -- and we've got another couple weeks, and it will be as far south as it goes -- we're looking down this way to see the sun hit the gulf. That's gone. I mean, with the size of that tower, it is gone. The width of the tower, it's gone. We have two buildings right now. I know one of them is the -- is it Beachmoor? -- Beachmoor, and I can't remember what the name of the other one was that does block, and I know for sure I lose 38 days a year as it comes back and goes on of the actual gulf -- the sunset hitting the gulf. We know that. I understand that. What it is, it's just so massive. And to me, it's more the ratio of the height to how -- squeezing every little inch in there, and that's the thing. I mean, I've been downtown Chicago. I've been to Miami. That's what it looks like. I don't want to be walking my dog every morning, which I do, walking down and looking at a, you know -- and I'll be in a shadow. In the afternoon you're talking a shadow on Vanderbilt Beach Road. There's no way of getting around that. South Bay ride, we go around that way every day. Same thing. I mean, it's just -- it will be claustrophobic in my opinion. COMMISSIONER FRY: So you'd be okay with a building height approximately equal to yourself and Beachmoor. MR. BAMBERGER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRY: But just not the mass. MR. BAMBERGER: It's just -- it's the height and -- yeah, that, I think, would be very acceptable, as long as it had the proper setbacks to go along with it. You walk down Vanderbilt Beach now and you can -- I mean, we're -- the towers the way they have got the landscaping, we're 150 feet back is the first building. The second building is over 200 feet back. COMMISSIONER FRY: I drove -- MR. BAMBERGER: You can barely see them. COMMISSIONER FRY: I drove through the area the other day and, yeah, I'd say the Regatta, I've driven down there 100 times and never even noticed Regatta. It is a very tall building, but it is set back significantly. MR. BAMBERGER: Well, we're set back 150 feet and almost 200 for Building 2. Even the mid-rises are set back with greenery all over them. You can't see them. And those, even the mid-rises, are well beyond the C-3 zoning regulations. We've done it. Everybody in the neighborhood has done these ratios. Why can't they? That's basically it. If they can keep to those regulations, that's fine. COMMISSIONER FRY: What about the -- I mean, what about the -- I think it's -- I would call it a reality that a residential use will generate less traffic than a commercial use. So while we say a C-3 would be advisable, it would -- I think it's been shown it would generate multiple factor of traffic compared to a residential use of some kind. MR. BAMBERGER: If it's using the current zoning, which is building height to setback, 5.A.a Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 44 of 126 you couldn't put a lot of square footage back there. If you've got a 60-foot building, it's got to sit 30 foot back from the road. I mean, you're not going to be able to put in a huge amount of property. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. I think you've answered my question. You're not overall concerned if it turned out to be commercial even if it generated more traffic, which I think's been documented by experts. MR. BAMBERGER: Yeah. Oh, I understand, basically some of the ratios. I think the traffic is -- everything has to be included, and that's why I think just the ratios that I want to present, I think, has to also be looked at. It's not just traffic. It's not just height. It's everything combined. I'm saying how this is going to affect me, myself, and my family, and that's it. I mean, you're talking the neighborhood where we walk down. We go to the beach store. Dave gives 32 dogs a treat every day of the week. He knows every one of the dogs by name. That's our neighborhood. That's what it's about. We walk by. We say hi to everybody. That's our neighborhood. COMMISSIONER FRY: Last question. There's a little bit of commercial in the current application. Let's just say how -- whatever is approved there, you know, it's going to change. You know that they own all that property. Something's going to be developed there. What is the amount of commercial that you'd like -- if it turned out to be a residential or mixed-use type of a thing, they're obviously -- they have a little bit of commercial. What's the amount of commercial that you think would be appropriate and that you guys would like? MR. BAMBERGER: I'm not an expert, by any means, but -- I don't know about square footage. But like I said, I go to the beach store every day. Dave is a great guy, knows everybody by name. Go in there, grab a pop, grab a coffee in the morning, something like that. I think that's nice to have. I think taking advantage of the location being near the beach would be nice. Maybe something a little bit similar, maybe nicer than the Beach Box, something like that. Maybe even a restaurant. You know, DaRuMa's nice. That's a great little place to go to, you know. But, again, the reason people are coming down there is to go to the beach. You know, they're not going to come down there to go shopping and do whatever. I mean, it would be a nice advantage. I mean, for me to walk down the street and find an Italian place or whatever or steakhouse, something like that. We don't need 10 of them, but having something, that would definitely be an advantage to the neighborhood, I think would be nice. Again, like I said, I'm really concerned with the squeezing in of height and everything just crammed right next to the road. It just -- I can't envision walking my dog every day and doing that. I just really can't. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you very much. MR. BAMBERGER: All right. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SHEA: One question. Sir? MR. BAMBERGER: Sure. COMMISSIONER SHEA: You might have already answered it, but are you okay with the changes proposed under the zoning in terms of the height limitations and setbacks that are on the second item? Are you okay with those conditions, or do you want -- MR. BAMBERGER: What do you mean the second item? COMMISSIONER SHEA: There's two items. One for a Growth Management amendment and one for a zoning change. The zoning change, staff recommendation is a smaller elevation and different setbacks and other criteria. MR. BAMBERGER: From what I've heard over the last, now almost four years, basically I think what James Sabo, his first recommendation, I don't remember the exact height, but he had 5.A.a Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 45 of 126 the setback ratio set up where that would definitely be acceptable. What the Vanderbilt -- Save Vanderbilt Beach, what they've done is not just height. Again, it's height with a setback. That's acceptable. I mean, that's what I look at. I just don't want to be walking along the road and being in a shade all the time. You know, once in a while you want to see a little sunshine. And so that all has -- those two that I've looked at -- I haven't looked at them and studied them, you know, as much as you-all have, but those two, to me, seem very acceptable. I think they would be acceptable to the neighborhood as well as C-3 zoning done properly, you know, and what can be done on that property the way it is zoned now. But what I say is, the Vanderbilt neighborhood, including the Regatta, has basically met all the criteria of the ratio of the height to the setbacks. And that's all I'm asking, that that needs to be taken care of, and that has to be taken care of in the Comprehensive Plan Management Plan, first of all. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So you don't -- you have -- you don't know if Mr. Sabo's plan, which is the second item we have to vote on, meets what you think is a reasonable criteria for setback to height? You haven't reviewed it? That's fine. MR. BAMBERGER: I have not reviewed it. COMMISSIONER SHEA: That's no problem. MR. BAMBERGER: I was just here sitting outside the first two meetings, and I saw his presentation. I went, that makes sense, with the wedding cake design. But I do remember his height and setback, I believe, was at that 50 percent ratio which, to me, is very acceptable because we've all done it. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Thank you. MR. BAMBERGER: All right. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Thank you. The next speaker is Betty Pircio. MR. FRANTZ: The next speaker is on Zoom. MS. PIRCIO: Hello. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Go ahead. MS. PIRCIO: Oh. Hi. My name is Betty Pircio, and I own a condo at Barefoot Pelican, and I'm a direct abutter to One Naples property. I believe that there's a pictorial of Barefoot Pelican on your screen right now? Yes? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Not yet. MR. STUART: I am searching for it. MS. PIRCIO: Please don't keep my minutes going, then. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Whoop. Your time's up. COMMISSIONER FRY: Was that an attempt at levity, Joe? Much better than mine. May I ask, can you see me? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: No. MS. PIRCIO: No? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Is that it? MR. SABO: Yes, that's it. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. MS. PIRCIO: May I start again? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Yes, you may. MS. PIRCIO: Thank you. My name is Betty Pircio, and I own a condo at Barefoot Pelican, a direct abutter to One Naples property. Barefoot Pelican is shown on your screen. The One Naples Lagoon mid-rise is 87 feet tall, 88 feet wide, and 500 feet long, and will be 37 feet from Barefoot Pelican Building 1. Their rear setback of 12 to zero feet is not 5.A.a Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 46 of 126 complementary nor compatible with our homes and will impact our quality of life and will create a nuisance by the building's out-of-scale wall. The drawing in front of you shows that. The front setback of 10 feet is not compatible with our homes either and will create another nuisance by significantly reducing our line of sight along with sun and shade impacts. Please do not approve this project as submitted. I attended the NIM on March 3rd, 2020, listened to the video, and submitted my notes, which are in your packet. There were 4- to 500 people at this meeting. Twenty-seven spoke on the video; more spoke after the video was shut off. One speaker asked the people who were in favor to stand. He counted eight people in all. Most of the speakers spoke passionately against this project, and I have summarized their comments. One, where's the architectural model? Speakers asked where the 3D presentation was. Stock had been promising it for months. The photos are misleading. We still don't know what their buildings look like. Why? Another asked, why don't the pictures show setbacks? And as an aside, when the residents finally hired their own architect to draw plans from Stock's public submissions so we could finally know what we were talking about, Stock sent out a cease and desist letter to prevent us from using our own renderings. Stock has stated that they have had 47 NIMs over the past months. Okay. Then why have none of the neighborhood condo associations endorsed One Naples, and why has opposition risen to several thousand people? Two, setbacks. Their setbacks don't belong in a fragile beach area. Their setbacks don't match the setbacks of the other buildings. Their setbacks would not fit into Lowdermilk, Clam Pass, Wiggins Pass, nor Vanderbilt Beach. The mid-rise on South Bay will be sticking out past our building by 15-plus feet and will be 87 feet high and 88 feet wide. We will no longer have a line of sight up South Bay from our walkways. We will lose some of our line of sight from our lanai to the lagoon. This will hurt our quality of life and our property values. Three, traffic. We call for ambulances and they can't get to us because of the traffic. Does someone need to die? Beach traffic rerouted because of too many cars. Beachwalk, Barefoot Pelican, Vanderbilt Palms, and Regatta residents talked of being unable to take a left out of their condos towards Route 41 and having to turn right, go up Gulf Shore through Naples Park. Pelican Bay spoke of beach traffic being rerouted through their streets. Others talked of rising sea levels and the difficulty of evacuation during storm surges. Vanderbilt Beach Road is a two-lane road to the beach and is already congested with cars, bikes, walkers, and baby carriages. So is there any common thread in all these complaints, or are these people just grousing for the sake of grousing? I'm going to make a couple of analogies in plain terms to make my point. One, our cup runneth over, so says Naples Daily News on October 4th, 2020. Collier County is partnering with the feds for $3 billion to address our storm surges with the Army Corps of Engineers. They liken Collier County to having their full cup of water and trying to pour more into it. Global warming is creating more hurricanes, and more hurricanes are creating more frequent and larger storm surges. The last thing we should be doing is doubling the intense -- excuse me -- doubling the density in our coastal areas. Two, the definition of compatibility. That is, where conditions can coexist in relative proximity to each other in a stable fashion over time where no use unduly negatively impacts another. There's an old saying, you can't put lipstick on a pig. If something moves into the neighborhood and is deemed to be so massive and far reaching that everybody hates it, can it be 5.A.a Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 47 of 126 made more attractive by draping it with trees, vines, a waterfall, and a piece of art? The developer's attorney would have you believe that, quote, enhanced landscaping will address the lack of setbacks. And that's how you improve the neighborhood, end of quote. Who besides the developer thinks that's true? Your Planning Department talked about compatibility and downsizing those massive buildings. Staff's 76-foot building height recommendation is a good start, and I support it. All of us would like something built here but, for everybody's sake, make it compatible and complementary with the rest of the neighborhood. So far Stock's 47 NIMs have been nothing but lip service. His starting point was so grandiose that it was impossible to mitigate. His proposal is unreasonable. We have presented Stuart's Exhibit 9 and 10 reasonable compatibility standards as the first step in balancing the community's needs against the developer's profits. If you approve this project, then approve Exhibit 9, design standards. We are reasonable people, and we want a reasonable development. That said, if Stock isn't willing to consider the community, then as representatives of the community, you must recommend denial. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Thank you. You have a question for her? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Mr. Klucik has a question for you. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: It's just to what you just spoke of, the Exhibit 9 standards. MS. PIRCIO: Yeah, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. I'm sorry. This is Rob Klucik. Again, thank you for -- for being active in our community and our county and the workings of it. MS. PIRCIO: Thank you. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Where is that standard? Because I just I want to -- I want to reference it. So if -- or if staff knows where we have that standard. MS. PIRCIO: I'm confused. What standard are you talking about? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: You just referenced the standard 9 or -- Exhibit 9. MS. PIRCIO: Oh, it's Greg Stuart's exhibit. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Greg Stuart's. MS. PIRCIO: It's in your packet. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. MS. PIRCIO: And that was -- that was to decrease the masses of the buildings to have them -- I believe that the planning staff recommended a wedding -- a tier approach to decrease the mass, and Greg Stuart had recommended a transitional step-down approach to reduce the masses. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No. And the reason it's important for me is you expressly asked us to adopt that, and so I want to make sure I understand what exactly that is. So I'm assuming someone here on our staff can make sure I know exactly what that is. Ray? Yeah, it's your exhibit, sir. MR. STUART: Gentlemen, Exhibit -- Exhibit 9 in the binder that I handed out, I had a hard copy in the side pocket. So if you have that, it's the hard -- it's the hard copy in the side pocket. And I believe it is -- yes. And I believe it's Slide 37, if my memory serves me correct. So Slide 37. Yes, in Slide 37 there will be a table showing existing C-3, Stock, and then arch standards. But the comprehensive standards, sir. COMMISSIONER VERNON: That? MR. STUART: Yeah. But if you scroll it, it's not -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Was that emailed to us also? 5.A.a Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 48 of 126 MR. STUART: Yes. It was in the original packet that was submitted weeks ago, and -- look for the table. COMMISSIONER VERNON: If you'd just take this and show us the page, assuming that's it. MR. STUART: Yes, I'm sorry. It was Slide 36 has a table, and that way you could compare C-3, One Naples, and our recommended standards. So Slide 36. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have one -- another question. On the slide that is on the viewer and -- of course, now, where these buildings are shown, there's -- everything's been razed. There's nothing there. What was there prior? There were buildings there prior and blocked the view regardless? MR. SABO: Residential units. MS. PIRCIO: They were little duplexes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Little duplexes. MS. PIRCIO: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But you do understand that, of course, this is high-value bay front property. And even if they were to put a ship store or some other kind of element, restaurants, with the docks behind it, the height that they would have to be built at to allow for the -- to meet the current base flood elevation requirements, it is going to require a fairly significant height to begin with. It's a 21-foot elevation for the first habitual floor, and then I would guess, because of the high value of this land and the -- certainly the proximity to the water, if there were even one or two other levels above that, you're going to probably be at the same height if it were a commercial building. You do understand that? MS. PIRCIO: Commissioner, he bought the building knowing what the zoning code was. We would just like him to take into consideration our -- our issues. He is taking away from us. He's taking away our you view. The people in this Barefoot Pelican Building 1 are going to be looking at a wall. They're going to be looking at a wall that's going to be sticking out 15 feet and going up 87 feet. That's going to be their view when they're sitting on their walkways. That's what they -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes, ma'am, I understand, but under the current C-3 zoning to build there, which they could build there today if they were to build a row of commercial restaurants, a ship store, other type of activity, you're going to have the same impact, and they are allowed to do that today under the current zoning. You're not going to have a free, open view like you have now because all of the buildings have been razed. They're going to be -- they have to come up at a minimum of 21 feet to meet the base flood elevation. Let's add another -- maybe another story above that, so it's two stories over base flood elevation. You're going to be -- you're going to have buildings that block your view regardless under the current zoning, which there is nothing that you could do to prevent that because that is what the requirement is today in order to build any type of commercial facility on that lot. MS. PIRCIO: Commissioner, may I answer you? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MS. PIRCIO: I don't have a problem with the height as much as I have a problem with the lack of setbacks. It's the setbacks that are blocking the view, not the height. He's only allowing -- he's asking for a 10-foot setback. Let's discuss the front-yard setback. And believe me, I'm not a planner, so cut me a little bit of leeway here. I'm just an owner. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MS. PIRCIO: He's doing a 10-foot setback from South Bay. Barefoot Pelican has a 32-foot setback from South Bay. So when we sit out on your walkways in Building 1, we're going 5.A.a Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 49 of 126 to be looking at a wall. If he had to abide by the current setbacks, he could move that building back. Yes, it would not be as lucrative for him, but he could -- he should, could and should, move that building back so not to impede our line of sight down South Bay. And he should do the same thing -- have the correct setbacks that are allowed on the lagoon. So we don't have as much of a problem with the height of that building as we do with the lack of setbacks. In fact, as Mr. Bamberger had said, every time you kept hearing the issues of this, it's because they're pushing the envelope on every single issue. They're pushing it on height, they're pushing it on the lack of setbacks, et cetera. They want to maximum this project as best that they can. But it is taking away from -- it is a takeaway from the people who are living there. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: No. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Break for lunch. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay, yeah. Went way past 12:00 a little bit -- well, not a little bit. So we're going to take a -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I ask a question? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: I know there was an agreement that several of the first speakers were going to be able to go longer than the typical three minutes because they were representing the larger group. Do we have an idea how many other non people that you mentioned who get more time who are on to speak? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: People that have more time you mean? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, there were six or seven speakers that we agreed got more time because they were part of the overall presentation. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: There's four more -- MR. YOVANOVICH: The gentleman from Regatta, I'm assuming he was part of -- to represent the view of the Regatta, and the woman who just spoke for Barefoot Pelican. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: There's four more. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. But I mean, after that, I mean, just how many -- because they told us that was going to result in a reduction in the overall number of speakers. I'm just trying to figure out -- CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Do you know how many speakers there are? MR. SABO: I do. For the record, James Sabo. Let's see. After Ms. Pircio; George Marks; Buzz Victor; Tony Pires, 15 minutes; and Mr. English, Pelican Bay, has 10 minutes. That's it. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Are there others on Zoom? MR. FRANTZ: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's the question I'm asking is -- CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. How many -- MR. FRANTZ: We have 80 people registered on Zoom; however, actually attending the meeting are only 34 more speakers. MR. YOVANOVICH: Are they going to -- I'm just trying to do the math. Are they going to be given the three minutes per speaker? So if I do that right, that's 112. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Three minutes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Or 102 minutes. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Three minutes. MR. YOVANOVICH: How many minutes are the other speakers? I'm just trying to 5.A.a Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 50 of 126 guess when I'm going to get up for rebuttal. MR. SABO: Fourteen and 25. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Two weeks. COMMISSIONER FRY: Tonight around 8:00 p.m. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I'm good. MR. FRANTZ: And I want to add that we also have eight people registered here in person. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: So a couple hours. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm good. I just wanted to guesstimate how much to eat at lunch. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Yes. So we can take a lunch break now, and we'll come back at 10 past 1:00. (A luncheon recess was had from 12:10 p.m. to 1:10 p.m.) MR. FRANTZ: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Thank you. Where's our quorum? One, two, three, four. Do we have a quorum yet? Okay. We're onto our next speaker. We have -- MR. FRANTZ: Your next speaker is George Marks on Zoom. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Mr. Marks, are you there? MR. MARKS: I am. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. MR. FRANTZ: We can hear you. You have seven minutes. MR. MARKS: Very good. Good afternoon. I'm George Marks, and I reside at 319 Lagoon Avenue in Vanderbilt Beach, and I have an architectural and planning background. I support the potential development of the subject property as a C-3 commercial mixed-use development in accordance with the existing C-3 zoning requirements. These include, but are not limit to, height, setbacks, density, open space, landscaping requirements, et cetera. At the same time, I'd like to make clear that my support is not exclusive to strict adherence but definitely substantially within the C-3 zoning rules and guidelines. My support will also follow the alternatives put forward by the members of the Collier County planning staff showing an activated retail presence along Vanderbilt Beach Road and Gulf Shore Drive. That may not be totally feasible due to the coastal regulations, but the concept is appropriate. It seems that the developers always want to threaten C-3 with additional traffic coming into the Vanderbilt Beach community, but no one has addressed that traffic flows both into and out of the Vanderbilt Beach community. The C-3 zoning, as I believe originally envisioned in 2003 and 2004, was for the site to be what I would call convenience commercial to support the Vanderbilt Beach community. The intended use would still be entirely appropriate today, and I would fully support it. A convenience commercial use, including beach store, deli, restaurants, dry cleaner, would all enhance the lives of the Vanderbilt Beach community. In reality, no one east of Route 41 is coming to this location for a dry cleaner or deli or convenience shopping with all the other options available to them in other locations. We should not be intimidated by such rhetoric. I wanted to offer an objective approach to this discussion. One measure of the quality of a neighborhood or community is its walkability score, which is easily found at the website www.walkscore.com. This score rates addresses in neighborhoods for their ability to meet the community's needs without the requirement for a car, hence the ability to walk to goods and 5.A.a Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 51 of 126 services, which Collier County promote through its healthy community marketing. It also promotes higher market values and enhances a neighborhood. The scale is from zero to 100, meaning 100 means that all the communities needs can be met within walking distance. By example, the intersection at Vanderbilt Beach Road and Gulf Shore Drive has a walkability score of 28, meaning that most errands require a car. Go two blocks north to 9400 Gulf Shore Drive, and the score drops to 23. My address at 319 Lagoon Avenue has a walkability score of just 3, meaning it's totally car dependent. Compare these to an address in Olde Naples, say the 600 block of First Avenue, with its score of 69 deemed somewhat mostly walkable, meaning many errands can be accomplished on foot. Walkability is a good thing for any community. If the One Naples site was currently developed as C-3 zone and a mixed use, this would overall reduce the traffic loads by not requiring Vanderbilt Beach residents to drive to 41 and other areas. This would not only reduce traffic in the Vanderbilt Beach neighborhood but the Route 41 commercial corridor as well. The One Naples project as currently designed actually removes current walkable commercial uses in the Vanderbilt community and, therefore, would reduce the overall already poor walkability score. The current C-3 zoning as designated by the county's development and zoning codes has always been intended to enhance a neighborhood's walkability as a convenience commercial use. The C-3 zoning requires that the main focus of this site be a commercial use with limited residential. The Stock plan grossly violates the intended Growth Management Plan and current C-3 zoning. As proposed, One Naples provides benefits only to the 170-plus residential unit owners and the developer himself. Properly designed C-3 development would benefit the entire community in Collier County. The One Naples development as proposed with its massive 45-foot-high first level walls and only a 15- to 25-foot -- 20-foot setback is the antithesis of the intention of the C-3 zoning. It says "keep out" to the rest of the Vanderbilt Beach community, not come in for shopping and great dining. How much traffic could be reduced if a residential neighbor or a guest at the Ritz/La Playa could walk to convenience dining? Mr. Stock is a respected and accomplished developer who purchased the properties for some 20 or $25 million. In doing so, he, not the Vanderbilt Beach community or Collier County, may have made it infeasible to develop the site in accordance with the current C-3 mixed-use zone, but that was a decision he made and not one that should be the responsibility of the Vanderbilt Beach community and/or Collier County to resolve. I understand that the responsibility of the Collier County Planning Commission is to protect and enhance the community by recommending approval for projects that are complementary and compatible with the neighborhood and by recommending denial of those that do not meet those standards. The developer himself has stated that if we were to develop this site commercially while in full accordance with the zoning in place, there would be no need for this meeting at all. I invite him to do so. As a neighbor, I would fully endorse such proposal and be Supporter No. 1. In summary, I support the redevelopment of the site in accordance with the current C-3 mixed-use zoning and hereby request that you recommend denial of the currently proposed One Naples development to the Board of County Commissioners. Thank you for your time today. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Chairman, I do have one question. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Do you have a question? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just want to, for the record, note this is not a C-3 5.A.a Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 52 of 126 mixed-use zoning. It's C-3. It is not mixed use. If it was mixed use, they'd have to -- if they wanted mixed use, they'd have to come back in for a Comp Plan amendment. It is C-3, period. No mixed use. So I know you -- Mr. Marks, you talked about C-3 mixed use. Totally incorrect. It's C-3. Current zoning is C-3. Has nothing to do with mixed use. MR. MARKS: It's my understanding, Mr. Schmitt, that the residential is allowed to be 50 percent of the commercial use on the site. So I believe, by definition, that would be the case. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's not correct. MR. MARKS: Can somebody -- can a planner opine on that, please. MR. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sorry. Just for the record, Rich Yovanovich. In order to do that, it would require a conditional-use approval. It's not as a matter of right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's not a matter of right. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I just wanted to correct for the record, the zoning has been C-3 since prior to the 1989 Comprehensive Plan amendment. It wasn't recently zoned C-3 in 2003 or '4 that I think the speaker just said in his statement. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And that's a -- that's an important point that I'm going to ask staff to hold and clarify at the end, because I want to talk about the zoning reevaluation and make it clear to all that the C-3 was pre -- prior zoning prior to the Comp Plan and that it actually is a residential area. But the C-3 was by right. But I'm going to ask staff to be prepared to address that issue so you can educate the other commissioners on the zoning reevaluation that took place in 1989. I think it was '89. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Any questions from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. We'll go on to our next speaker, which is Buzz Victor. MR. FRANTZ: Buzz Victor is also on Zoom. Give us just a moment as we unmute. MR. VICTOR: Hi. Can you guys hear me? MR. FRANTZ: We can hear you. You have seven minutes. MR. VICTOR: I do know that we'd like to put a graphic up. Can you tell me whether it's up yet? Yep. That would be it. Okay. You still hear me, I assume. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Yes. MR. VICTOR: Good afternoon. My name is Buzz Victor, and reside at 312 Lagoon Avenue, roughly a third of a mile from the site. I also represent the interests of the community-based nonprofit Save Vanderbilt Beach, Inc., of which I am its president. Its 1,100 members and the 700 people who have signed our online petition in opposition I also represent. We oppose the One Naples project as it is proposed. We're not interested in preventing Stock from pursuing the development of the land that he owns. Our sole interest is in assuring that whatever is developed is complementary and compatible with our neighborhood and doesn't mark the beginning of turning Collier County into the west coast version of Miami Beach. When these hearings began, the developer gave you an ultimatum. He said you only have two choices: Either recommend approval of his submitted plan, or he would build a 100,000-square-feet commercial development on the site, as he maintained was his right under the current C-3 zoning. His implication was that because, in his opinion, such a development would be highly detrimental to the neighborhood, there was really only one choice: His proposed plan. By the end of that day, it was clear that there were many other possibilities. As Chairman Fryer said, this is not a binary choice. There are several good choices on the table and only one bad one; that would be recommending the approval of the project as it's been proposed. The developer's plan is not responsive to the concerns of the neighborhood and creates just 5.A.a Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 53 of 126 the canyon effect that the county and neighbors abhor. The developer has tried to make a case for compatibility by comparing his buildings to those south of the site in Pelican Bay. We and your staff have maintained that such a comparison is inappropriate. In this, we've been joined by the Pelican Bay Foundation. You've all received an email from the Foundation's president stating, and I quote, to compare only height in Pelican Bay to other areas without also considering the overall planning and multiple other constraints that apply to Pelican Bay seems like selective cherry-picking. It's not an apt comparison, end quote. Stock Development has not been responsive in any meaningful way to the voices of the neighborhood. Had he been so, we and the many other groups who join us, the Pelican Bay Property Owners Association, the residents of the Trieste and the Regatta, the Vanderbilt Beach Residence Association, the Naples Park Association and others would not have had a need to be here today. So what would be acceptable? What -- as the law requires? What is complementary and compatible? Let me recap the options that have been presented. Option 1, the current zoning of the land is C-3. The Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan that relate to this zoning are clear. Residential density is permitted with a maximum of 16 units per acre, half of those of that the developer requests. Similarly, building heights and setbacks are specifically defined and are also half of what the developer requests. Consider the developer purchased the land unconditionally, that is without a contingency for his receipt of regulatory approvals. It follows that he was comfortable with the C-3 regulations. While he may have desired less restrictive conditions, surely he knew that there was no certainty of receiving them. If the developer creates a C-3 zoned commercial project, we strongly encourage him to do so. Option 2, your staff has found that as proposed, the project is neither complementary nor compatible with the neighborhood. Staff has provided conditions for the developer to follow in order to become so. Building height for all tracts is limited to 76 feet zoned, but it may be increased to 125 feet if the towers and their supporting structure are redesigned into what's called a wedding cake design. We support the staff's recommendation regarding this design, although we feel that it's lacking and not specifically controlling the height of the parking structure. An additional staff proposed condition permits a 15-foot setback in lieu of the required 25 feet if the developer provides accessible commercial space for beachgoers and others. Unfortunately, this design creates just the Miami Beach canyon effect that we all hope to avoid. Please, deny the optional 15-foot setback, insist on a mandatory 30-foot setback, and require a limit on the height of the parking garage to 25 feet. The third option is documented in the Save Vanderbilt Beach Exhibit 9 design standards. They say complementary and consistent with the neighborhood. They would require that the parking structure have a maximum height of 25 feet; that the towers be at different heights. One not exceeding 135 feet and the other not exceeding 102 feet, each including the height of the parking structure; that a density be no greater than 19 units per acre, which is three more than is that allowed under the current zoning; that the maximum 30-foot setbacks -- sorry, that minimum 30-foot setbacks be observed to the parking structure with that increased to 70 feet to the towers and 25 feet from the lagoon; and that there be 25 feet -- percent of open space, not including rooftop recreation areas. These standards are a reasonable and viable compromise, delivering both neighborhood compatibility and appropriate regulatory relief for the developer. With that said, if the developer creates his commercial project that follows C-3's rules and regulations, we encourage him to do so. You have all been inundated with emails and other communication regarding One Naples, clear evidence that, from the public's perspective, something is wrong here. Now you have the 5.A.a Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 54 of 126 chance to correct it. On behalf of the literally thousands of concerned citizens, I ask that you recommend to the County Commissioners denial of the plan as proposed. I'm sure that you recognize, just as we do, that your actions today will have long-term consequences affecting our neighbors and Collier County far into the future. I want to thank you for your public service, your objectivity, and your thoughtfulness in formulating your recommendations. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Any questions from anybody? COMMISSIONER FRY: Just one. Mr. Victor, the heights shown in your exhibit and your compatibility standards, are those actual or zoned heights? MR. VICTOR: I think they're -- given what's going on, I think they ultimately end up as zoned heights. I mean, we certainly are not happy about 208 feet, and if that was the actual height, then we'd like these to be actual heights -- if the 208 feet is augmented by 21 or whatever is necessary to get it up to 230 feet, then what we're suggesting would be zoned heights. Does that make sense? COMMISSIONER FRY: It does, thank you. Is the 208-foot -- that's an actual height, correct, or is that zoned in the request? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Actual. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm assuming you want it on the record. COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes, please. MR. YOVANOVICH: Again, for the record, Rich Yovanovich. That's the actual tippy-top height. COMMISSIONER FRY: What's the zoned height? MR. YOVANOVICH: 182, right? It's 182 zoned; 208 actual. COMMISSIONER FRY: So 26 feet above the zoned for all the stuff that has to go on the roof? MR. YOVANOVICH: Remember, you start at 21, the garage, and then the roof. That's what adds the extra height. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Got it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. On to our next speaker, which is Tony Pires. MR. FRANTZ: Mr. Pires has 15 minutes. MR. PIRES: Madam Chair, members of the Planning Commission, thank you very much. My name is Tony Pires with the law firm of Woodward, Pires & Lombardo, and I represent the Save Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association, and I appreciate the opportunity to articulate some of their concerns and also the additional time that you have provided, and I may actually take less time. I know it's hard hearing that from an attorney, but I may actually be able to do that. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: We'll see how you do. MR. PIRES: I know. Fourteen minutes and 28 seconds. We appreciate the additional time. And while the developer has revised the project in various aspects over the last three years, and my clients and representatives have met with Mr. Stock and they appreciate the opportunity to meet with him in the past to review this project and express their concerns, the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association still has continuing significant concerns relating to the One Naples project such that they -- and we request that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners to deny both applications. Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association is not opposed to development, but they want development that is compatible with and complementary to the neighborhood and the surrounding uses. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 55 of 126 The Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association, as I outlined in my letter, it's a not-for-profit corporation established in 1997, and it's been very active for several years in zoning and land-use matters in the Vanderbilt Beach area. And they have approximately 950 members at the present time. The boundaries are the Gulf of Mexico on the west, Vanderbilt Beach Drive on the east, Vanderbilt Beach Road on the south, and the Caloosahatchee River/Wiggins Pass on the north. And the purpose -- one of the primary purposes of Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association is to encourage and promote the proper development and maintenance of Vanderbilt Beach and surrounding areas as a choice residential and recreational community. As I previously outlined, there are a number of objections we have raised. I will try not to be repetitive. I know we've had a number of expert people testify and attorneys present their arguments and/or positions, and if I do overlap a bit, I apologize in advance, but I will try not to be repetitive. I echo the concerns, and we adopt and ask the Planning Commission to strongly consider the expert testimony of Mr. Greg Stuart and Mr. Bill Oliver and also the arguments put forth by Sarah Spector and Ralf Brookes, the attorneys for Save Vanderbilt Beach and other organizations. And based upon our arguments and the expert testimony in the record from Bill Oliver and Greg Stuart, we believe -- we request the recommendation of denial of both actions. You've heard over and over again the language in Policy 5.6 of the Future Land Use Element, and I'm not going to repeat that. But what's -- one issue that's not been addressed in the compatibility context is what is really planned on being built. We have had discussions and discussions and discussions on some graphics of two towers. I would point out to you in the staff report, and it's at -- you can find it at Agenda Packet Page 501, Page 3 of the staff report, the very -- it's first -- two lines. It says, please note that the applicant's proposal is conceptual and the PUD ordinance does not limit the number of buildings and units for each tract. Now, I did not see in my review of the ordinance as proposed to be adopted an exhibit that shows the site plan that's up on your screens. I saw a -- I'll call it a bubble site plan that has tracts with boundaries. And so I would argue and assert to you that the massive continuous one building that Mr. Stock and the developer indicated they initially contemplated but have since abandoned could, in fact, be built. It's not -- I did not see any language -- maybe I missed it -- in the draft ordinance that would preclude that from occurring. That has not been addressed. That would be highly incompatible. We argue and agree that what's proposed is incompatible per se. But having a massive structure -- which the argument presented by the applicant in his presentation was, we don't have one big massive structure. We have two towers. But the site plan you see is not attached as an exhibit to the PUD. And in my opinion, they will not be bound by that, especially with this language that's provided in the staff report. It says, please note the applicant's proposal is conceptual. The PUD ordinance does not limit the number of buildings and units for each tract, and nor does it require there be two buildings of towers. I would submit to you it allows one massive tower. With regards to -- and so what could occur, as I calculate the length along, for example, Vanderbilt Beach Road -- excuse me -- Gulf Shore Boulevard, I mean, it's approximately 274 feet in length. So there could be a structure with the minimum -- minimal setbacks requested of 25 feet along Gulf Shore Boulevard, along Vanderbilt Beach Road and along South Bay, the 25 feet setback, and that building would otherwise be approximately 225 feet long, and they're asking for it to be 16 stories tall. That, I would submit to you, is incompatible and not complementary to the community and to the neighborhood. It appears all the compatibility analysis has been based upon the two tall tower site plan and that site plan alone. I submit that no analysis or testimony has presented that a massive one-building structure is compatible as required by the Future Land Use Element. In addition, you've heard the testimony that the proposed development has to be 5.A.a Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 56 of 126 complementary to the surrounding land uses. We've had, again, expert testimony that Mr. Stuart provided that it's not complementary to surrounding land uses. And I listened carefully, and sometimes I miss words and sometimes I don't catch all words in documents. There's only about 20,000 pages that we've had so far in these three iterations, but I did not see any testimony by anyone saying this project, as proposed, this development, is complementary to the surrounding land uses. There was lots of talk about landscaping and traffic and -- but no one, to my recollection, testified that this project is complementary to the surrounding land uses. You heard just the opposite from Mr. Stuart, an expert. This is almost like a flashback to 17 years ago, and Joe Schmitt had just come on board, the Community Development director, when the folks in Vanderbilt Beach -- there were -- three groups formed a collaborative effort. There was a prior Save Vanderbilt Beach group, there was Vanderbilt Beach to bay, and the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association, my client, all got together because they saw the canyonization of Gulf Shore Boulevard was taking place. And the County Commission, in their wisdom, implemented a one-year moratorium for a study of that area. And a study was created to adopt what's now the Vanderbilt Beach Residential Tourist Overlay which has as its focus the avoidance of canyonization, preserving view corridors, light and air, because those were the concerns articulated by the community. The C-3 parcel you have here was deliberately left out of that area. I would submit to you that if there's to be -- my clients are fine with C-3, let me put it that way right now. The alternative proposed in Exhibit 9 by Mr. Stuart is acceptable and a -- or a variation on what is proposed that would track the design elements, I'll call it, of the Vanderbilt Beach Residential Tourist Overlay. Open views; site views; not having these massive structures to, again, view, air, and quality of life. The concerns then addressed by the Vanderbilt Beach Resident Tourist -- RT Overlay were height, reduce canyonization, eliminate the wedding cake, preservation of light, view, air corridors, and the other concern was greater density in the coastal areas. I think those all sound familiar. Those are the exact same concerns 17 to 18 years later, because the Board of County Commissioners in January 2004, after Planning Commission meetings in 2003, adopted the Vanderbilt Beach Overlay. I would submit to you the C-3 zoning was consciously left in place at the project location. After the detailed study and analysis of the Vanderbilt Beach area, it resulted in the adoption of the overlay. Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association are very well aware that this property can be developed as commercial under the C-3 zoning, which also provides the ability for residential uses over commercial as a conditional use. I'm glad Rich corrected that today, because in the prior hearing, he said there can be no residential use. But as a conditional use, it can be over commercial, so you have some residential uses that can occur. We submit that approving the proposed Growth Management Plan amendment and the PUD amendment, PUD for this project, would be antagonistic and antithetical to the land development framework and scheme implemented in 2004 by the overlay after much public input and staff work that addressed the exact same concerns. Again, we support the testimony and evidence by Greg Stuart and James Sabo that the project is not compatible and the density is not compatible with the surrounding land uses. The people before me have made cogent arguments with regards to suggesting and requesting that the Planning Commission recommend denial. We believe the applicant has been forewarned, and Sarah Spector touched on it, about the compatibility issues. The initial draft -- Corby Schmidt, one of the county planners, had an initial draft June 19th, 2020, addressing the Future Land Use Element consistency. It's a memorandum, and you have one in your file. That memorandum had language, I think, that was significant that was in the pre-application meeting but that was left out of this memo, deleted by Anita Jenkins on 5.A.a Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 57 of 126 June 26th, with no explanation as to why it was deleted. The language that was deleted was, we remind zoning service reviewers, however, that this area is sensitive -- the area of this project. This area is sensitive to the scale, compatibility and sense of place that exists in the Vanderbilt Beach area and that it was previously recommended to the petitioner to consider redesigning the project to reduce the mass, scale, and placement of buildings to protect view corridors and light and air movement. These are the protections provided by the Vanderbilt Beach Residential Tourist Overlay to ensure compatibility near by. The petitioners have chosen not to follow these recommendations and adopt these protections. And, again, that gets back to the whole issue about compatibility. They could have made it compatible and have chosen not to. So going back to address the concerns 17 years ago and today, the clear and ignored guidance, we suggest, should have been followed. Again, we recommend and request that the C-3 zoning remain, the application be denied and, as an alternative, again, Greg Stuart, his Exhibit No. 9. One other issue that's come up, we've had -- I think someone said there was testimony that was presented as to the increase in property values by Bob Mulhere. Again, maybe I missed it. I didn't see any such testimony by Mr. Mulhere. I did see two quotes by Mr. Yovanovich on October 1st where he said, I think the answer is -- this was a question by Mr. Schmitt with regards to studies. And Mr. Yovanovich: I think the answer is there's no question that converting a high-end residential community is going to increase their property values around this area versus a commercial development. Look at the Property Appraiser's records. Richard's not a witness. He was making argument. That's not substantial competent evidence, I would submit, to the Planning Commission on this matter. A couple other cleanup items. I would suggest that in the PUD document right now and, in fact, in the Growth Management Plan amendment, it lists as the subdistrict it's -- if you look, I think it's Agenda Packet Page 224 of the draft ordinance for the Growth Management Plan amendment, Vanderbilt Beach Road mixed-use subdistrict, the sixth line down, it says, it's to provide flexibility in order to promote redevelopment of the site with a resort tourism-centered project. We've been told it's residential -- which shall include a mixture of residential and/or hotel. Hotel has not yet been deleted from the Growth Management Plan amendment. We suggest that needs to be cleaned up in this particular document. And what we also would suggest, and based upon all the expert testimony that we've heard, is disregard the Darth Vader approach. I call it the death star approach. Be careful; if you deny this, we're going to build C-3. On the C-3 component, I guess -- I've been asking for a long time -- that we've heard this discussion 100,000 square feet of commercial can be built. Staff has said 167,000. However, I think all those calculations -- I'm not sure, because I've seen no detailed breakdown -- were predicated upon the full 5.42 acres. Recall, there's .79 acres that cannot be built on today until and unless the right-of-way is vacated. I would submit a plan showing what can be built applying to C-3 setbacks, the C-3 height standards to the lots as they exist today on the plat, using those lot lines, not using the right-of-way, is what needs to be provided to the Planning Commission and to the County Commission to verify or discredit the assertions as to the square footage of commercial that can be built. I have asked for that since August to -- is there a detailed study or analysis of what can be built including the right-of-way, under current conditions. Of course, we're told they can build it today, but they always have the 5.42 acres, which cannot be built upon today. MR. FRANTZ: You have 30 seconds. MR. PIRES: Again, we respectfully request this the Planning Commission make a 5.A.a Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 58 of 126 recommendation of denial to the County Commission. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Tony, I'll take the last point first. You do recall the first meeting the county did opine that this petition could proceed under the assumption of the vacation of the easements would take place rather than going through the vacation and then going through the petition. So I understand your point of view, but are you disputing the position of the County Attorney in regards to this proceeding without the vacation taking place? MR. PIRES: That wasn't my argument today. I had that in my correspondence, and I heard Jeff's advice, and I've not referenced that today. My argument is, everyone is saying, the applicant and staff is saying, this is what you can build today under C-3 on 5.42 acres, but I would submit you have to look at -- take the site as it exists today. Those individual platted tracts with those individual lot lines and the right-of-way line cannot be used as developable property today. So if you're comparing what can be built today, my opinion is you need to exclude the .79 acres as to what can be built today. What is proposed to be built in the future is predicated upon the .79 acres being vacated. But if I was to go in there for a Site Development Plan today, I'd be confined to those platted tracts. I could not build any structures on the county's right-of-way. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Unless they got the vacation. MR. PIRES: Right. But I'm just saying -- but I'm just saying the analysis is, here's what we can build today, but that's -- the facts on the ground are it's not vacated. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But they would go through the vacation first. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, no. If I may. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But the -- and hold off from -- Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: I will. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But you stated you wanted to remove "hotel," and I thought that the petitioner already made it clear on the record that there would be no hotel. MR. PIRES: I agree, but it's still in the document that's in the agenda packet. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: It's not in mine. MR. PIRES: It was in the agenda packet for the growth management. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: It's not in this one. MR. YOVANOVICH: Tony. Tony, you know, we've known each over close to 100 years now. MR. PIRES: 125, I think. Both of us are Methuselahs. MR. YOVANOVICH: We said we would take the word "hotel" out of the final product. We will. MR. PIRES: I'm just saying it's still in there. That's all. MR. YOVANOVICH: I find that a little disingenuous to say that you can't trust my word. MR. PIRES: Oh, no. I'm just saying it might be a typographical error. That's all. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The only other issue I want to bring up is -- and you brought up the whole history of the VBRTO. MR. PIRES: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And -- but the underlying zoning in that whole VBRTO, Vanderbilt Beach Residential Tourist Overlay is what; RT, correct? MR. PIRES: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Residential tourist. MR. PIRES: Well, and -- yes, that's why it's called VBRTO. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Which means it could be -- anywhere along Vanderbilt Beach, so they're residential tourists, they could be rental, they could be short-term rentals. It's not strictly a residential community. It was designed and still zoned as RT zoning. You don't dispute 5.A.a Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 59 of 126 that? MR. PIRES: For certain portions along Gulf Shore Boulevard. Not all of Vanderbilt Beach. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Along Gulf Shore, yes. MR. PIRES: There are -- yeah, there are areas that are excluded on the west side and on the east the side. It's not all of the property on Gulf Shore. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I think it's important then -- because I already brought it up. But I just want to make sure that -- and you clearly understand the whole evolution from 1989, the zoning reevaluation that was already -- when this -- when the county had to comply with the then directed state laws, they did a zoning reevaluation. Much of this area was rezoned; however, the C-3 zoning stayed by right because there was C-3 activity on the site. Had there not been -- and I'm just probably stating this as a matter of my experience with this area. And, of course, you already cited my time with the staff. But this most likely and probably would not have retained C-3 zoning were they able to eliminate the commercial on that site. But they could not take away commercial. So it stayed C-3 by right. It never really was intended during the zoning reevaluation to be a C-3 property. They had to make it C-3 property because, again, the facilities that were there, they could not take that zoning away. Do you argue the point that -- MR. PIRES: No, I -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Because C-3 zoning was not compatible with that part of the county. MR. PIRES: What I tried to do -- I have some of those old zoning reevaluation maps going back to 1990 in my office. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. PIRES: The old 11-by-17s, and it's hard to find those guys nowadays. And I found some of the memos and some of the letter exemptions. There was a whole complicated process. David Weeks was intimately involved for a couple of years. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I recommend we bring David Weeks back on active duty here so we can -- MR. PIRES: Yeah. And I can't recall, and I looked for my map on that area. I could not find that particular property on it, so I don't know if it was an exemption by right after they looked at the property. Because, as you know, the staff process was the staff went out and checked all those properties that may have been deemed inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Then they looked at it, and certain people had a certain time frame to apply for an exemption and/or county rezoned their properties to residential or left them alone. I don't know what happened exactly on this property. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But that's because there was existing commercial there. They could not take the zoning -- they could not rezone it to RT because of the existing commercial, which has mostly disappeared except for the Beach Box and the restaurant. Most of the other commercial zoning has disappeared, but it still has the C-3 zoning. But I guess it's -- I believe that at that time, had the county been able to, they would have taken away the C-3 zoning because that is totally incompatible in that area of the county to have commercial zoning. But they could not rezone it, and it retains C-3 zoning by right. And I don't know maybe if Amanda has the history or somebody else since we've brought that up. But, in fact, if you really looked at it from a standpoint -- and I would even ask your staff planners that -- I believe, if one were to look at this from truly compatibility, C-3 zoning is not compatible in that area. MR. PIRES: My clients beg to differ, obviously, and others do, too, that we have no difficulty with it remaining C-3. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. Well, I respect your opinion. Thank you. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 60 of 126 CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: Maybe you weren't in the room when we went through and discussed during our initial presentation the commercial option. We did the commercial option assuming we did not vacate the roads. So our analysis was not on the 5.42 acres. It was on the zoning assuming that all the roads stay the same; do you recall that? MR. PIRES: No, sir, not at all. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. I'll show you the exhibit. Maybe it will help you. MR. PIRES: Yeah. I saw a graphic that was up. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That was part of the record. MR. YOVANOVICH: Maybe you weren't in the room. I understand. I just want to make sure, because -- I just want to know, is it your client's position that they're perfectly comfortable with 100,000 square feet of C-3 zoning that would include multiple restaurants similar to the Beach Box and those types of uses to be constructed on that piece of property? MR. PIRES: First of all, I can't see all the roads on here, Rich, because -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm representing to you, Tony, all the roads are -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. YOVANOVICH: When we did that plan, that all of the roads remained in place. So my question is -- because you said the burden's on me, and you're going to get to see it in our rebuttal presentation. I just want to hear from your -- you're the representative -- that you're comfortable with 100,000 square feet of C-3 attractor uses on the property instead of a different use on that property. MR. PIRES: My clients are comfortable with C-3 zoning. MR. YOVANOVICH: At 100,000 square feet of development on the property? I'm just asking a simple question. Just assume I'm right. MR. PIRES: I'm not going to -- I don't like to make any assumptions, Rich, even though I've known you for a long time. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm not asking you to trust me. MR. PIRES: Thank you for not asking that. No, I'm just kidding. My clients, again, just very simple and clear, are comfortable with the zoning remaining as C-3. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. At the 100,000 square feet? MR. PIRES: I'm not saying at 100,000 square feet. Remaining at C-3. You're making the representation. I'm just saying C-3 is acceptable. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. I'm just asking you. If I'm right, are your clients comfortable with me being right that there's 100,000 square feet of C-3 development on the property? MR. PIRES: First of all, assuming you're right -- I'm not sure I'm going to ask my clients if they're comfortable with you being right. MR. YOVANOVICH: You don't have to, because I had architects and an engineer actually lay it out. But that's okay. You don't have to trust me. But are you comfortable with it or not? MR. PIRES: Again, my answer is my clients are comfortable with the C-3 zoning. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Can I -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah, I want to jump in. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Mr. Vernon. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I really want to get at the same thing Rich is getting at but maybe in a more conversational way. I think Mr. Stuart was talking about 30,000 square feet. They're talking about 100,000 5.A.a Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 61 of 126 square feet. I've heard some of the previous speakers talking about a dry cleaners, and Mr. Stuart, I think, talked about a Publix. Rich is saying maybe a Beach Box. And so from sitting here, I'm thinking -- and I'm not a developer, but I'm envisioning more of, let's just say, 50,000 square feet. I'm envisioning a number of bars and restaurants that will attract young adults, and I guess, to get technical about it, go back to Commissioner Schmitt's point. That doesn't sound to me, personally, in listening to all the evidence, that it's really what we want there. And I'm not saying we want what's being presented. I'm just saying that's kind of what I envision that -- you know, my kids are college age. They would probably love to be near the beach. And I just see a bunch of traffic coming in for happy hour. I see a bunch of traffic coming in late at night. I see live bands. I'm not saying they can do that, but I don't really see -- if we force them into the position that they make the economic decision they're going C-3, I don't see a dry cleaner and a nail salon and a Publix there. That's, you know -- and that -- I don't know what's in his head. But I see a mini -- I think the term's been used so far. I see almost a mini Mercato, and I'm not really excited about a mini Mercato. I understand the death star argument and the parade of horribles that that's just a threat and they're really not going to do because they can make a lot more money probably modifying what they're doing. But I just am really surprised that I keep seeing -- hearing people, person after person saying we're fine with C-3 based on even being pretty conservative and buying into Mr. Stuart's arguments in terms of square footage and disagreeing with Rich on 100,000 square feet. So this is kind of a long speech, but can you kind of comment on that? MR. PIRES: Once again, there are a number of uses in the C-3, and my clients have recognized that C-3 zoning status for years. As Joe mentioned, 2003/2004 it was there. And the parade of horribles has not occurred to date. Someone will argue, well, now we have an aggregation, so their horribles can occur. But, again, that's a hypothetical that I believe if the market conditions were there today for that, that would be in the planning stage. And my clients, again, they request denial of the application. C-3 is acceptable. An alternative planning concept would be Mr. Stuart's Exhibit 9. If you're going to have any residential development on that site, lowering in height, greater setbacks, compatible with Beachmoor across the street, other buildings further up, and utilizing the light/air/view corridor concepts of the overlay district. MR. YOVANOVICH: I do have one more question, if it's acceptable. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: And could it be because, having known each other as long as we have, it wasn't too long ago that I believe you represented the clients you have today opposing the Beach Box; am I correct? MR. PIRES: It wasn't the Beach Box, per se. It was the nuisance activities on the part of Beach Box in the form of parking on my client's property. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. MR. PIRES: Okay. That's the primary issue. MR. YOVANOVICH: That was the issue? MR. PIRES: Yeah, parking. MR. YOVANOVICH: It wasn't the noise that was associated with the Beach Box? MR. PIRES: Some noise, but the main issue was -- and I think the issue on appeal that ended up coming before the Board of County Commissioners, Rich, was parking. The administrative parking variance approval granted by the staff that was inappropriate. And there is -- there are some residential development there now, and that is by a conditional use, I think, at that corner by the Beach Box. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 62 of 126 CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Karl? COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Pires, is that Exhibit 9 on the screen right now? MR. PIRES: No, it's not. COMMISSIONER FRY: That's a variation of it, right, with the commercial moved? MR. PIRES: Exhibit 9 I have, it's a two-part. It's called Compatibility Development Standards Table. COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes, we've got that. MR. PIRES: That's Exhibit 9. COMMISSIONER FRY: So just to clarify, regardless of what is proposed there, if it did go C-3, even that application would require a traffic review, correct? Traffic is the giant -- is one of the giant concerns of the residents. So would not the traffic have to go through a TIS and be approved by staff and the roads be able to handle the traffic? I guess I'd just like to clarify that. MR. PIRES: Well, it's already C-3. MR. YOVANOVICH: What I said -- yeah, and I believe I said this earlier, and I think I know it's been a month since we had the presentation. COMMISSIONER FRY: You probably did. MR. YOVANOVICH: We would have to go to staff with a Traffic Impact Statement, and I think Ms. Scott testified that that's all I would have to do and that there's plenty of road capacity on the roads for, as everybody wants to say, our tale of horribles of 100,000 square feet of retail. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you. That's it. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Mr. Klucik, did you have a question? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, I think I'm fine. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Anybody else? MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. MR. PIRES: Thank you, Madam Chair. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Thank you. And the next speaker is Mr. English. MR. FRANTZ: Mr. English has 10 minutes. MR. ENGLISH: Nobody's ever done that for me before. Thank you very much. I feel very secure. Good afternoon. My name is Mark English. I'm here on behalf of the property bay -- property bay -- Pelican Bay Property Owners Association. We're here to talk about something that Mr. Fry brought up which is what the folks that will be living in the area and doing with all the things that are brought about due to whatever gets built there. The first thing is that I want to present to you, which you already have, retroactively, are petitions, 2,769 names, each unique. This is a carefully scrubbed list for duplications. There are none on it. You're more than welcome to verify that. We compiled that from the middle of July to the first week of August, over three -- over a three-week period at a time when COVID-19 was at its peak. There were no groups to go before because there were no groups. The winter folks had already returned home, and we've still got 2,769 signers on the petition. Since then some more have come in. And then on top of that you have 20,000 letters, collectively, that you've received from concerned citizens. All of these people, of course, are opposing One Naples as proposed. Last week we ran a survey, and the survey had two questions. It said, do you think your property values are going to be affected by this? If so, are they going to go up? Are they going to go down? Are they going to be changed? And where do you live? And any comments that you shared with us. There were about 230 responses. This is in less than seven days. One hundred fifty of 5.A.a Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 63 of 126 those people lived in Pelican Bay; the balance lived outside. Five people said the property values would go up, ten people said they would be unchanged, and the balance of them said their property values would go down. The comments focused on traffic. That seems to be the big concern. Now, that leads me into the second thing. There are only three things that I'm going to talk about. But back on October 1st when the first meeting was held regarding One Naples, the gentleman from the county, the traffic engineer from the county talked about a traffic survey that was held on a busy day in February, and they used their assimilation to project that on a busy day with One Naples in existence their assimilation indicated that the road would have a 79 percent use. And then they used the assimilation with the C-3 zoning or commercial, and they said it would have a 90 percent use. Here's the thing: Decisions that are being made today are being made for people that aren't born for 30, 40, and 50 more years. If this One Naples gets approved and built as proposed, this is going to have a 100-year life, and this is going to go on and on and on. In that time frame, you're proposing 300,000 houses or new residences out east of I-75, and those people have got two roads to get to the beach. They've got Vanderbilt Beach Road, and they've got Immokalee. At U.S. 41 and Vanderbilt Beach Road, you have three lanes currently feed into one westbound 100-foot-wide road that would be difficult if not impossible and very expensive to widen. As you go down there, we encounter all these problems with the parking garage and beyond. If you make the turn and you go up Gulf Shore Drive, that's even more narrow. That's the bike path down from Bonita, we've got vehicles on that road competing against bicycles, people walking their dogs, jogging, skating, and all these kinds of things creating all kinds of safety hazards. In addition to that, there are three public service operations, the sheriff, EMS, and fire, that feed into Vanderbilt Beach Road, and all -- as all this traffic increases, that's going to have a bearing on their response times. Now, let me go to the -- I don't know how much time I have. But the other subject is regarding commercial. When I came down here 40 years ago, the mall had a -- Coastland Mall had a movie theater. The big deal was Sears, Walmart was a teenager, and there was no Amazon. The theater didn't make it, so they closed that and made it retail. And now these years later what's happening? They're pushing over Sears, Amazon is running over everybody, Walmart's doing okay, and they're putting up a movie theater. And the point of this is that commercial is market driven, and as we're talking about whether it's going to be a cleaners or a -- I mean, I picture this bicycle shop because of all this bicycle traffic. But whatever it is, the barber, the sports bar for your young adults, sure, they'll go down there, it's the beach, and all these things. But over 40 years or 80 years or 100 years, lots of things are going to change. The Mercato opened up in '09, February 9th of '09. Merrill Lynch where I worked went into the Mercato as one of if not the first tenants. There's been all kinds of changes in the Mercato in that 11-year period. We all know about the Waterside Shops. They pushed over Jacobson's and made all those changes in the waterscape, and now they're going through all kinds of problems with COVID and the struggles that the retailers are having in that situation. So C-3 -- and Mr. Schmitt, mixed use, not mixed use, I'm not a zoning person, so I don't know really what all that really means, but we far favor that because over time it's going to be adaptable. And people don't want to walk down a sidewalk 50 yards from a beautiful, beautiful beach and have a 14-story wall 15 feet away. I mean, they just don't. It's a quality-of-life issue. It's not Naples, Florida. And so we respectfully and humbly ask you, on behalf of all these people that we represent 5.A.a Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 64 of 126 and have had responses from through the Pelican Bay Property Owners Association, please deny this. It's the wrong project in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's not who's right. It's what's right. And what's right is to -- is to put something in there that benefits everybody and not just 176 people that like to live over -- up there at the expense of everybody else, including those people that are already here, blocking views. I'll conclude with that. Thank you all very much for bearing with me. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Thank you. MR. ENGLISH: You don't get to say anything to me? MR. YOVANOVICH: I can if you want me to. MR. ENGLISH: I'm embarrassed. I feel slighted. COMMISSIONER FRY: I will, sir. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Mr. Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. English, I will say something to you. MR. ENGLISH: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: If you'll accept me instead of Mr. Yovanovich. So you're in -- you're a tenant in Merrill Lynch in Mercato and we -- you know, Commissioner Schmitt clarified this is C-3. This is commercial. It's not mixed-use currently zoned. Are you, the Pelican Bay Property Owners Association, in favor of Exhibit 9 as presented by Mr. Stuart or just pure commercial? Because that's been presented as an alternative by Save Vanderbilt Beach. MR. ENGLISH: I don't know what Exhibit 9 is. COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, it's a -- it's mostly residential with towers 12 stories, nine stories, and then low-rises. MR. ENGLISH: I'm unfamiliar with it. I'm not in any position to comment on it at all. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. MR. ENGLISH: But I did have some point of great levity I was going to share; now it's gone. Basically, it's just a -- oh, I know what it was. One of the things you asked us to do is tell you where we lived relative to the project. And I have two properties. One's about a mile and one's about a mile and a half. It's on everybody's mind. We worry about the traffic. We've already got a problem out there on Vanderbilt Beach Road. That stoplight's a monster. People are diving down into the neighborhoods to avoid the light, and they're using Oakmont, and they're using Myrtle Drive, and they're using Naples Park for a racetrack, practically. I think it's 91st Street. It's just creating a lot of problems. And that light is a lot of problems in itself. It's going to have to be dealt with as time goes on. But to pile more traffic on there is really -- it's creating a lot of problems, and it's creating serious safety problems for a lot of people. COMMISSIONER FRY: We're back to -- and I think -- I've been on this commission for two years, and routinely we have residents -- we have an application come in that is proposing less traffic than what would be there under the current zoning, and we have residents come up and say, we're against traffic, and yet what they're proposing is less traffic. And I'm not expressing support or anything on the -- I'm just saying, you are seriously okay with the fact that what you're asking for, C-3, would generate more traffic, potentially, than what they're proposing? You're okay with that? You just think commercial is a better use of the property? MR. ENGLISH: Two responses. The expert traffic person for Save Vanderbilt Beach talked about that, and he said -- this was at the October 1st meeting. He said, in his opinion, it would generate less traffic because people would -- in the community, in the Vanderbilt Beach community, Pelican Bay community, they would walk over there to go to lunch, to go to the fun spots, to -- 5.A.a Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 65 of 126 COMMISSIONER FRY: But that's factored in. MR. ENGLISH: Well, that may be factored in, but it's not factored in for 2050. And when you factor in 2040, 2050, thousands of people that aren't even born yet that are going to have to deal with this -- commercial property will adapt. It's driven by market forces. If that residential gets in there as residential, it's not going anywhere. They can play around inside of it, but they can't do anything with the outside, or very little. And they're not going to do anything with that 14-foot wall -- or that 14-story wall 20 feet, 15 feet from the sidewalk. But that's probably the best answer that I could give you. But the gentleman from -- the expert, I thought he was very good, as was the county. He was very good, too, talking about one day in February 2020. But he thought that it would reduce it. People would ride their bike over, they'd walk over. They'd -- they would actually reduce the traffic. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. I would just say -- I would just leave it at this: I think the professional, the traffic -- what's it called? The national T? What's the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: ITE. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- ITE would, I think -- based on how many meetings I've been in, which is not as many as a lot of people on this board, but it would beg to differ with that analysis. I just think it's one of the factors in this, and it's realistic. I think it's our responsibility that the people that visit, people that speak, people that are interested in this walk away with an understanding of reality instead of just perception. And the stats, the national framework for predicting traffic, says that this project would create less traffic than a commercial application. So I just think everybody's eyes need to be open to that, whether you want commercial or not. So I'll leave it at that. MR. ENGLISH: I'm not an expert on this so I -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Nor am I. MR. ENGLISH: So I won't challenge that in any way whatsoever. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. MR. ENGLISH: You fine, folks, thank you so much. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. MR. FRANTZ: Our next public speaker is Vincent Velasquez. Vincent will be followed by Ralph Cowie. Give them just a moment. They may be in the hallway. MR. YOVANOVICH: Are we down to regular time for people? MR. FRANTZ: Vincent, you have three minutes. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Three minutes. MR. VELASQUEZ: Hello. Thank you for your time. My name is Vincent Velasquez. I apologize for my dress wear. I live in Naples Park at 722 103 Avenue North, and I think -- I came in here just to say that I'd like to just keep it at the height that the staff has recommended. I don't want it to go any higher than that. I've been there for two years -- I mean, a year living there. I don't think a building's going to be a problem. I don't want to see any more -- and no disrespect to the Beach Box, because I'm sure we all enjoyed them back in our days, but I don't want to see it become commercial where we have parties all night long. I don't have an issue with the project at the height the staff has recommended, and that's all I was here for today. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Thank you. MR. VELASQUEZ: Thank you. MR. FRANTZ: Your next speaker is Ralph Cowie. Ralph will be followed by Amber 5.A.a Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 66 of 126 Robinson. COMMISSIONER FRY: Are we using both podiums? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Are the speakers mostly out of this room? Maybe they could come in and -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't think they know they can alternate. MR. COWIE: Thank you. My name is Ralph Cowie. Sitting all morning maybe stopped me up a little bit. I've been following the meetings on Zoom. Again, my name is Ralph Cowie. I own at Barefoot Pelican. I bought in 1983. As I came down Vanderbilt Beach Road, Palmetto bushes were on the side of the road. Things have really changed then. We've got a library, fire department, police department. Some major changes have been made. But I'd like to express my opinion that I'm opposed to the Stock Development known as One Naples. The actual -- thank you. The actual development will not improve my lifestyle or those at Barefoot Pelican and the beautiful Vanderbilt Beach area. I'm a Florida resident. I purchased my condo, as I mentioned, in 1983, and there's been a lot of new things that I think are good. I happen to live on the fourth floor at Barefoot Pelican, which is between 30 and 40 feet from ground level. I brought with me today some pictures. And I'm sorry -- I will take that one since it's up there first of all. The development as proposed by Stock Development will have a wall sticking out in front of me because there's 10 feet of right-of-way -- I'm sorry, setback. Barefoot Pelican is 25 feet from the road and from the lagoon. The proposed development will have a wall like you're looking at. I sent you an email, and I think you also have a couple of pictures that I gave you today. That wall will be 20 feet in front of Barefoot Pelican. I'm a reader. I sit on the walkway and read. That wall is, to me, very pathetic. I think that it's outrageous that I do not have a line of sight that I'm having today. If you excuse me one moment. MR. SABO: I got it. MR. COWIE: The second picture I have is what I look at today. This is what I've been looking at for 37 years. It's a line of sight. There's no building next door. The wall that I showed you sticking out 20 feet is also 87 feet tall. Barefoot Pelican roof is 50 feet. We also have a parapet which hides our air conditioners. MR. FRANTZ: You have 30 seconds. MR. COWIE: Those are approximately nine feet. So we have 59 feet. Next to me is an 87-foot-tall building. Stock has a comparable building along another street. That building is 70 feet, which I think has been mentioned earlier today, you have a 20 feet plus 50 feet of ravine. So that's 70. I'd asked, why is the one next to me 87 feet? MR. FRANTZ: That's three minutes. MR. COWIE: In 2017 -- I'll try to finish. In 2017, I met with Brian Stock, and he went through his plans. He said that he was going to continue it no matter what. We met him again, and he said he's going to continue it to make those improvements. If my time is up, I will abscond [sic] to any questions, but I can just tell you that all I'm looking for is setback, okay. It affects me. It affects Barefoot Pelican. I'm not asking for a reduction of units. The building as currently planned is twice the size of Barefoot Pelican. If you took 20 feet off of the building it would still be more than 50 percent the size of Barefoot Pelican. I'll take any questions you might have. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Thank you. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 67 of 126 MR. FRANTZ: Your next speaker is Amber Robinson. Amber will be followed by Justin Finch. Amber, you have three minutes. MS. ROBINSON: Good afternoon. My name is Amber Robinson, and I have lived in Naples Park for over 20 years. I regularly attend Vanderbilt Beach. I originally had concerns about traffic increases that would reduce my ability to access the beach; however, from what I have seen over the past year, it's my opinion that we can comfortably welcome new neighbors to the area and still enjoy the beach. The times when congestion will be an issue is a small period when any scenic area in Southwest Florida will be experiencing the same. I feel the aesthetic improvements created by this project are a welcome changed. As I have seen my property values increase over the years due to being in close proximity to developments such as Pelican Marsh and Mercato, I expect to see the same from Naples One. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Thank you. MR. FINCH: My name is Captain Justin Finch. I have lived in -- on Vanderbilt Beach Lagoon or close vicinity for 33 years. I have made my livelihood on the waters of Vanderbilt Beach for the past 29 years. I do approve of this program, this project. I feel it will greatly gain -- the aesthetic of the area is much needed. Unless the water park is an option, I vote water park. From the perspective of a small business owner, I feel it's important that I share my experience with Stock Development. For the past 17 years, I have owned South Bay Marina located on the property of the proposed project. Upon purchase of the land, Stock had the option to bid out the services offered by my business, and they -- not only my business but several others. Rather than seek out the highest bidder and maximize the commercial income, Stock opted to show loyalty to myself and those vendors who had a long-standing relationship with the area residents. A few months later Hurricane Irma devastated my business location, leaving my building beyond repair and my fleet of boats in tatters. Without provocation, Stock Development approached me offering assistance that would allow my business to move forward. A year later, all of Southwest Florida was inundated with the worst red tide outbreak on record, lasting seven months. This was another devastating blow to any marine-related business and, once again, the Stock team reached out to offer any assistance they could. Now, 2020 rolls, and COVID-19 hits during the two most important months of my business year. After experiencing the failures of government business assistance, the one source of consideration of, yet again, the team at Stock. After all I've been through the past three years, I can say beyond a doubt that without the kindness and compassion shown to me by Stock Development, my home and 17 years of blood, sweat, and tears would have been erased. Without a need to publicize their generosity, I have repeatedly observed decisions made by them on the betterment of the area for the current residents. When I hear comments that describe an organization that is focused on profits above all else, I strongly and gratefully disagree. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Thank you. MR. FRANTZ: Next speaker is Miguel Lopez. Miguel will be followed by David Galloway. If those speakers are no longer here, we can move on to Zoom. COMMISSIONER SHEA: David's here. He's right there. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Oh, okay. MR. GALLOWAY: Thank you. I could have done Zoom because I've been here three different days about eight hours a day. I'm -- good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm David Galloway. I'm speaking on behalf of the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association. I'm president of this almost 25-year homeowners 5.A.a Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 68 of 126 association. The geographic boundaries encompass, on the west side, the Gulf of Mexico, on the south side, Vanderbilt Beach Road, on the west [sic] side, Vanderbilt Drive, and on the north side Wiggins Pass. It's a good-size area with approximately 6,000 doors or resident condos and houses that the association represents. We have always been proactive in addressing the various projects in this area, such as beach renourishment, assisting with not having a 1,100-foot-long fishing pier, as you remember a few years ago, and large restaurant -- or large restroom and concession facilities that was proposed a few years ago to be located directly at the county park beach access turnaround area at the end of the Vanderbilt Beach Road. The Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association was involved in assisting and establishing a new MSTU two years ago in order to properly fund the dredging of Wiggins Pass in the future as needed, which is available for use by all residents of Collier County. For over three-and-a-half years since the One Naples project was announced, the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association has been in a very cordial relationship with Stock Development, having met numerous times in person, and most recently by a telephone and Zoom, Brian Stock and Keith Gelder. Our members have attended the various informational meetings regarding this project. The Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association board of directors and membership thoroughly understand that the parcels of land in question will be developed at some time. We want it to be done in a responsible manner that can be supported by the area's thousands of residents. I personally feel that the Stock Development group is an excellent building company; however, I understand this project will be their first high-rise endeavor. We believe the project, as it is presented, is too tall and doesn't have adequate setbacks proposed and needed to accommodate these buildings, amongst other items that have already been presented by our legal counsel today. With all of this being said, I happen to live for almost 20 years at the Beachmoor condominiums directly across from this project on Gulf Shore Drive. The Beachmoor condominium has been referenced many times in these commission meetings. The Beachmoor condo's height that has been stated as being 125 feet tall. The proposed project -- MR. FRANTZ: You have 30 seconds. MR. GALLOWAY: -- is at least 208 feet tall. The additional traffic generated by the proposed project density will be absolutely terrible, creating safety and health issues at this intersection of Gulf Shore Drive and Vanderbilt Beach Road. My opinion only, why don't we have the county consider buying the property from Stock Development, make it a beautiful focal point park to Vanderbilt Beach for all the residents and visitors that enjoy Collier County for many years in the future. MR. FRANTZ: That's three minutes. MR. GALLOWAY: Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association is recommending denial of this project, the zoning change, and leave it as C-3 zoning. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Your three minutes is up, sir. MR. GALLOWAY: Thank you. But Planning Commissioners and elected County Commissioners, please listen to your constituents on this issue. Thanks for your time. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Thank you. MR. FRANTZ: The previous speaker, Miguel Lopez, transferred to Zoom. We're going to unmute Miguel now. MR. LOPEZ: Can you hear me? MR. FRANTZ: We can hear you. You have three minutes. MR. LOPEZ: Okay. Hello. My name is Miguel Lopez. I'm a resident of Naples Park. Vanderbilt Beach has been a local, you know, mom and pop fixtures, you know, the Box 5.A.a Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 69 of 126 Beach, the beach store, the Lighthouse, DaRuMa, and the open area. The whole area is open. It's real nice the way it looks right now. We don't want to give up, you know, this for multiple 14-story condos. It's just going to create a concrete jungle. This area was planned to be a light commercial zone and mini Mercato, which has been mentioned before, not for oversized condos. Since we have plans for a rezone, and the plan does not include condos. Vanderbilt Beach is packed with visitors. During high tide and high season is worse. We don't fit. We -- with more condos, it would be worse. The county must decide that this zone is not suited for condos. I bike to the beach every day, and the traffic is dangerous, even now with less buildings. Starting at Vanderbilt Drive, a traffic study should be initiated before we consider any new construction. It's really bad right now. And before we have a fatality. We have strollers, bicycles, older citizens, and families that walk to the beach daily. Speed limits must be reduced. Either way, whether we do commercial or whether we do condominiums, we have to reduce the speed limit there. It's really dangerous, and it's going to create a real nasty problem. You mentioned a water park. Yes, this is a great idea. This area is the last option -- this area is the last option left for the public to have access to the inland canals. We don't have any access to the canals right now. Please give us a park. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Thank you. MR. FRANTZ: Your next speaker is Marsha Oenick. Marsha, can you hear us? MS. OENICK: I am here. Can you hear me? MR. FRANTZ: We can hear you. You have three minutes. MS. OENICK: Thank you for taking my comments. My name is Marsha Oenick. These are my personal comments. I'm not representing any organization with these remarks. I have been a resident of Naples Park neighborhood for five years. Some current testimony from staff indicates that the county should consider the rezone first and make the GMP amendment compatible with this. I agree with one of the commissioner's questions that this is backwards. Here's the thing: An amendment to the Growth Management Plan requires justification for the request. I have followed the extensive documentation for both of these requests so I know what the previous lawyer for Regatta said; multiple requests were made for justification for the Growth Management Plan amendment. Eventually a document was provided called the Justification and Supplemental Information document dated May 29th. But it does not provide justification for the need to double the residency density from 16 to 31.7 acres per -- units per acre. The staff report from Mr. Schmidt clearly states on Page 7 that no analysis was completed despite acts -- asks to justify the request. There is a blanket statement that it will improve property values in the area. You've heard from several speakers that this is not the case for their development. The petition also restricts the amount of commercial space. The petition is only an ask without justification. The double density with the size of units desired then creates a need to the outside currency [sic] 3 limits for building heights and setbacks. Many people have talked about this. Again, these asks are without justification. No justification has been provided for these asks. We have to consider if the request for density increase and limitation of commercial space is justified. The stated benefits are landscaping and a traffic light. Whether the current five-year plan includes a traffic light is irrelevant. The new information provided can alter county plans. The landscaping will utilize tremendous amounts of drinking water to start and maintain. I personally don't find this aspect acceptable considering the water issues the county faces, its irrigation 5.A.a Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 70 of 126 restrictions, and its promotion of no-water landscaping. Losses to the residents of the county and the tourists of the county seeks to attract are loss of some -- MR. FRANTZ: You have 30 seconds. MS. OENICK: -- current and any future commercial amenities in this area. You have two choices. Address the density question and its implications first or consider the rezone and work backwards. I hope you address the density question first. If you take this approach, you need to recognize that the needs of the developer for 170 units are to achieve his specific financial goals. These financial goals are those of the developer -- MR. FRANTZ: That's three minutes. MS. OENICK: -- and not those of the county and the residents and tourists it serves. In fact, you have heard residents indicating it will lower your -- lower their financial situations. If you do the other route, please make sure that you require the developer to accept all the stipulations in Mr. Sabo's reports. If these requests are refused by the developer, I strongly urge you to deny approval of the Growth Management amendment, which is required for that rezone application to be considered. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Thank you. MR. FRANTZ: Your next speaker is Kathleen Robbins. Kathleen, are you there? MS. ROBBINS: Yes, I am. Thank you. Thank you, Planning Commission. My name is -- MR. FRANTZ: You have three minutes. MS. ROBBINS: Pardon me? My name is Kathleen Robbins, and I am the treasurer of the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association. All of our members live within the geographic area encompassing the development being proposed by Stock. As Mr. Galloway mentioned, he and I met with the developer multiple times over the past three years, and we were hopeful originally because Mr. Stock and his team did reduce the size of the project along the way; however, these plans before you are still out of scale with the rest of the Vanderbilt Beach neighborhood. Not only in height and density, but in the lack of adequate setbacks. This project is neither compatible with nor complementary to the existing neighborhood and would set an irreversible precedent. We ask that you recommend that the Board of County Commissioners deny both of the developer's applications. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Thank you. MR. FRANTZ: Your next speaker is Dailey McPeak. Dailey, are you there? (No response.) MR. FRANTZ: Dailey, can you hear us? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: We'll move on to our next speaker and come back to Dailey if we're able to. The next speaker is Ann Steffen. MS. STEFFEN: This is Ann Steffen. I am opposed to the project. Thank you. MR. FRANTZ: We'll try Dailey McPeak. One more time. Dailey, are you there? MR. McPEAK: Yes, can you hear me? This is Dailey McPeak. I live on Gulf Shore Drive. Are you hearing me okay? MR. FRANTZ: We can hear you. You have three minutes. MR. McPEAK: Yes. I live on Gulf Shore Drive about a block from the proposed project, and I'm really concerned that the density, the traffic is just -- it's already a problem, and it's only going to be more and more of a problem. I strongly encourage the Planning Commission to 5.A.a Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 71 of 126 say no to this proposed project. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Thank you. MR. FRANTZ: Your next speaker is Karen Tarapata. Karen, are you there? MS. TARAPATA: Yes, I am. Can you hear me? MR. FRANTZ: We can hear you. You have three minutes. MS. TARAPATA: Thank you. My name is Karen Tarapata, and I'm the president of the Vanderbilt Yacht and Racquet Club located at 11030 Gulf Shore Drive up by Bluebill Avenue. We are one of the long-standing condo communities that will be heavily affected by the One Naples proposal. Our objections to this project are not generalized community opposition to development. In the 35 years since VYRC was built, we've seen many fine developments and redevelopments on our street; however, One Naples is greater in size and impact than anything we've seen before. The applicant's request for double the allowed density, double the height limit, reduced setbacks, and of greatly reduced minimum open-space requirement is not compatible with the neighborhood. As proposed, it's too close to the road, too tall, and too dense. Looming over the intersection and the bay, One Naples will degrade our quality of life in this area forever. The residents of Vanderbilt Yacht and Racquet Club support the height recommendations and setbacks recommended by the county planner. There's little we can do to really improve the traffic situation, as there really are only two ways in and out of the neighborhood; Bluebill and Vanderbilt Beach. Bluebill. We have Delnor Wiggins, we have the Collins Park parking. We have the Catholic church. We have the elementary school. That road is already very heavily used, and sometimes we have to use Vanderbilt Beach Road in order to get back into the neighborhood. I am concerned -- we are all concerned that the increase in traffic is going to make this even more difficult, access to our homes. I understand that the commercial development would greatly increase traffic, but even the number of units proposed by the applicant currently would increase traffic at peak times by 50 percent from about 96 trips per hour to, what was it, 148. We believe that there's -- it's too much, too dense, too big, and certainly the setbacks should be the minimums recommended by the county planner. Thank you. MR. FRANTZ: Your next speaker is Jim Jacob. Sorry. Looks like Jim is no longer on Zoom. The next speaker is Julie Cowie. Julie, are you there? MS. COWIE: Thank you. I live in Barefoot Pelican. On the Collier County Growth Management Plan page of your website is a document from April 2001 called Toward Better Places. The introduction of this document states that, quote, the Community Character Plan attempts to discern and respect the very character of Collier County. Character is the combination of many things. It is exemplified by style, image, locale, mood, liveability, connectedness, and sense of place, unquote. In deliberations today, I've heard Vanderbilt Beach referred to as an informal community. That's true. It has a relaxed vibe. It is walkable, bicycle, a place with bocce ball on the beach, getting beers from the Beach Box in bathing suits, happy hours on condo decks at sunset, and dog walking on sunny sidewalks and parks. Despite the tremendous wealth present in real estate, it is not a pretentious place, or not as pretentious as some. Condos and homes alike are still available for purchase under $500,000. In the process that preceded your April 2001 report, again, I cite its intro, quote, Collier residents clearly communicated that they don't want to stop the development that makes the county prosperous, but they want new development to enhance the community in other ways as well. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 72 of 126 This plan looks at growth not simply as an engine of prosperity but also how it interacts with mobility, green spaces, and livable results, unquote. These values are threatened by the size and scope of the proposed project of One Naples. There must have been some decisions made 20 years ago that triggered the responses of your residents at that time. Please learn from history and do not make the same overreaching development decisions again. I urge you to follow your own documents and values and deny this project that vastly exceeds the scope of residences in this area and the spirit of the existing community of Vanderbilt Beach. On Page 2.15 of your document -- and this is my last quote -- the plan states, the culture of community-making and spirit of responsibility demonstrated by Collier County pioneers and town founders can be re-established. MR. FRANTZ: You have 30 seconds. MS. COWIE: Community character should be placed at the forefront of planning decisions, not contemplated as an afterthought, unquote. Please retain the remarkable, delightful, informal, and unpretentious vibe of Vanderbilt Beach. The density, height, concrete, traffic, and arguable exclusivity of multimillion-dollar condominiums located on this small -- MR. FRANTZ: Three minutes. MS. COWIE: -- site across from public beach access must not be allowed. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Thank you. Terri, you ready for a break? THE COURT REPORTER: Sure. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Yeah. Okay. Let's take 10 minutes. (A brief recess was had from 2:40 p.m. to 2:52 p.m.) CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay, everybody. It's time. Can you please -- everybody please sit down. I don't think they hear me. Okay, everybody. Could you please take your seats. MR. FRANTZ: Chair, you do have a live mic. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Could everybody please -- I'm going to use the gavel in a minute. COMMISSIONER FRY: Use the gavel. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Throw it. Throw it. Okay. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: We still have speakers on Zoom? If we could have the next speaker, please. MR. FRANTZ: Our next speaker is Cheryl Roe. Cheryl, are you there? (No response.) MR. FRANTZ: After Cheryl is Michael Roe. Give us just a moment as we try and get them on Zoom. Michael Roe, are you there? (No response.) MR. FRANTZ: Okay. After Michael is Paul Giannetti. Paul, are you there? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Sounds like people are giving up. MR. FRANTZ: Okay. It looks like Paul does not have a microphone hooked up, so we'll try to come back to him later if we can. The next speaker is registered as Marianna and Richard Dubois. MR. DUBOIS: Good afternoon. Richard Dubois here. MR. FRANTZ: Hello. We can hear you. You have three minutes. MR. DUBOIS: Thank you. I'm a resident of Vanderbilt Beach for 40-odd years, and I'm 5.A.a Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 73 of 126 at 9811 Gulf Shore Drive. And I've seen many developments on Vanderbilt Beach. And many times when people have a project presented to them, they have pictures, renderings, and they really don't see or feel what that gigantic size of what it's going to be. And I apply to the commissioners that are listening right now. I would ask Stock Development to build on the three areas most important, like the one on Vanderbilt Beach at the corner, on the one on Vanderbilt Drive, and the one on the water, to build a wall of the height that they are requesting and the setback they're requesting for about 20 feet so the Commissioner would have not pictures only but the true value or look of what it would be. And it is important, too -- I don't know, with all due respect, which commissioner mentioned earlier and when somebody else was talking that what is -- what was built in that -- in there before? And the person that answered said duplexes. I'm almost surprised how come the commissioner would ask. Has he ever -- have you all ever visited or has anybody been setting foot in that area to really, really see what they're going to refuse or accept? And I understand very well your position; it's very difficult, but without seeing, feeling -- MR. FRANTZ: You have 30 seconds. MR. DUBOIS: -- sizes and height, you're making a mistake of not doing that and not asking the developer to do that. And thank you very much for listening to me. But I am against that project as it is presented or else that opens the door for me as a developer then to do the same thing on another piece of property and ask the same thing that could not be -- MR. FRANTZ: That's three minutes. MR. DUBOIS: -- refused. It could be setting a precedent. Thank you very much. My name is Richard Dubois. Anytime you want to get in touch with me, please do. I'd be glad to. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: Karen, may I? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Dubois, this is Commissioner Fry. Just -- I got an email from a resident, I don't know, before the last meeting, asking -- making the same request -- I'm not sure if any commissioners did, too -- that we would visit the site, so I did. I even videoed driving down the street. And so I did think it was a valuable exercise to get perspective of the area. You can see the Ritz behind the parking garage. As you drive down Vanderbilt Beach, your eyes are drawn initially to Trieste on the left, which is a very tall high-rise just off the road to the left. So it's a valid point. MR. DUBOIS: That's Bay Colony. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER FRY: Correct. No, that's correct. I just wanted to let you know that I think probably a significant number of us have been there, and -- but it is good to go to the site to get the perspective. We don't always have time to do that. MR. DUBOIS: Altogether to exchange as you professionals are trying to do your best decision in the matter, that would be a good idea to my knowledge, because pictures can be arranged, and we've seen that many times right there. Thank you very much again for calling what you had to say, but I suggest you visit and get those examples built and try to walk next to them at five-feet setback. Thank you very much. MR. FRANTZ: And we're going to go back to Paul Giannetti. Paul, are you there? (No response.) MR. FRANTZ: Okay. I thought we had Paul. MR. GIANETTI: Can you hear me? MR. FRANTZ: We can hear you. You have three minutes. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 74 of 126 MR. GIANETTI: Okay. I don't need three minutes. I would just want to tell you I've been down in Naples since 1969. I'm really not that old. I didn't think so. Our family's been there since the -- 40 years. I actually bought property five years ago. I'm a member -- or a resident of Pelican Marsh. I am -- love great development and the rest of it; however, I think that the county planner -- the density, the height, the setbacks, we've set that stone. We've set that standard. I don't have a problem with the development if it meets the standards that we have for Collier County. I think changing the standards changes the whole dynamic of Vanderbilt Beach -- Vanderbilt Beach Road/Gulf Shore. And as many others have said in the past and Ann and the rest of them, I'm opposed to it from that perspective. Thank you. MR. FRANTZ: We're going to try one more time, Cheryl Roe. (No response.) MR. FRANTZ: Cheryl, are you there? (No response.) MR. FRANTZ: Cheryl, if you're there, please unmute yourself on your end. (No response.) MR. FRANTZ: Okay. We're going to move along. The next speaker is Paul Pashibin. Paul, are you there? MR. PASHIBIN: Hello. I'm on unmute. Thank you to the Planning Commission. My name is Paul Pashibin. I'm a nearby resident; Meadow Lane Drive. Actually about a mile from the beach. We have owned property here for about nine years, and we specifically purchased due to the charm and accessibility of Vanderbilt Beach. I think it goes without saying but I want to mention that as a resident I'm new to this process here, but I've been really pleased with how this has been handled. I've been impressed by how most of the commissioners have been pretty transparent, and you've given more than ample time for both parties to present your content and their content. I'm going to yield most of my time simply due to the fact that my comments are duplicates of others, but our family owns four homes within a mile of the proposed project. We are against the plan as proposed, and I'll sum it up with a simple statement: The neighborhood really -- we know that growth is inevitable. We simply expect managed growth. Don't take Plan A because Plan B is worse. I've been in marketing for many years. We know what's coming next from Stock. They're going to show us today, or sometime, whenever we get to that, how they think a commercial development is going to look, and it's going to be scary. And they're going to scare us into Plan A. Let's just work together to make Stock's plan fit better in the community. Thank you very much for listening. MR. FRANTZ: Your next speaker is Kenneth Melkus. Kenneth, if you can unmute. MR. MELKUS: Hello? MR. FRANTZ: Hello. We can hear you. You have three minutes. MR. MELKUS: Yeah. I really don't have anything to say. I had registered to observe. I had previously made comments back on behalf of Save Vanderbilt Beach, so I won't be duplicative of your time. Thank you. MR. FRANTZ: Your next speaker is Bonnie Michaels. Bonnie, are you there? If you could unmute yourself, please. MR. SEEF: In lieu of Bonnie, who is my wife, and she's not able to speak at the moment, my name is Michael Seef. I don't know if -- I did register separately, so you should have my name. I just received the Zoom connection. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 75 of 126 So if -- with your permission, I'd like to tell you about our community, which is Beachwalk, which is halfway between Highway 41 and Gulf Shore Drive. We currently, during the season, which I'll define as being between February or January through approximately May, have enormous traffic. We're on Vanderbilt Beach Road on the north side. As I said, about right in -- right in the middle. And we have a terrible time and feel very unsafe getting out of our community during the season at almost anytime. In the non-season, it's just based on beach traffic which, as you probably realize, goes west in the morning and goes back east in the afternoon. Just for reference, we have 356 dwellings. That's approximately 600 cars. And our wait times can be really considerable. But the main issue is fear of collisions. People drive 35 to 40 miles an hour down Vanderbilt, and in back there's a lot of commercial traffic as well. So there's -- it's dangerous, and we're concerned about it. I've tried to make this clear to staff, and I never received a response about the safety issue. They did their TIS in January, and in May -- I believe it was middle or late May, I'm not sure -- which are not the average seasonality time period. They need to add 20 percent to their TIS to really account for the traffic that's currently -- that's currently there. The other -- my other concern is that -- and a couple of people just brought this up earlier, we're not just talking about year 2020 when we have COVID-19, et cetera. We're talking about 50 years hence. And population growth in Collier generally, especially in the eastern areas, from 2020 to 2030 is going to grow about 20 percent -- MR. FRANTZ: You have 30 seconds. MR. SEEF: -- to the year 2040 it's going to grow by 36 percent, and that's not going been accounted for in the ITE. It's not been accounted for in the TIS, and it needs to be done, because that population growth is per the AUIR and is used by the county to assess traffic and transportation planning. So please do not -- MR. FRANTZ: That's three minutes. MR. SEEF: -- approve this until we have a decent TIS and, for the C-3 zoning, an ITE that is appropriate and not just paperwork. Thank you. Again, Michael Seef of Beachwalk, and I hope you consider all of these. MR. FRANTZ: Mr. Seef, could you please spell your name for the record. We do not have your registration on file. MR. SEEF: Yes, sir. I'm sorry. First name is Michael, M-i-c-h-a-e-l. Last name is Seef, S like Sam, double E like Edward, F like Frank. Any questions, I'm happy to answer. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. FRANTZ: Your next speaker is Michael McCully. Michael, if you're there, could you unmute yourself. (No response.) MR. FRANTZ: Our next speaker is Brian Maher. Brian, could you unmute yourself. MR. MAHER: Yeah. Can you hear me? MR. FRANTZ: We can hear you. You have three minutes. MR. MAHER: Great. Thank you. I'm Brian Maher. I'm president of the Trieste. I'll try to be brief and not repeat what you've heard from others. We support the Pelican Bay Foundation letter you have all received. Trieste is not -- is part of Pelican Bay. It's specifically in Bay Colony, a gated development within Pelican Bay. Trieste is not part of the neighborhood north of Vanderbilt Beach Road where the proposed project would be. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 76 of 126 Apart from all that, from a comparability standpoint, using Trieste height alone is total cherry-picking. Trieste has 105 units on 4.7 acres of land, a density of 22 units per acre. Looking at all of Bay Colony, there are about 880 units on 200 acres, a density of less than five. The Trieste garage is set back about 85 feet from Vanderbilt Beach Road, and the tower itself is much farther back than that. Finally, the proposed towers of the project would partially block northwest gulf views of about two-thirds of our units. None of us believe that those towers would improve property values. We would support the downsized projects proposed by Save Vanderbilt Beach or the county planning staff. C-3 commercial would also be acceptable to us. Thank you for listening to my comments. MR. FRANTZ: Your next speaker is Raymond Dearchs. I apologize if I'm mispronouncing that last name. If you could unmute yourself, Raymond. MR. DEARCHS: It's close enough. I appreciate it very much. I guess, to summarize, I just want to say that my family, who owns there, believes, A, way too tall; B, the setback is way too small, and the lady who spoke earlier about it just not being -- it's out of character for the neighborhood had it right on target. I just want to address the fact that I came to the Vanderbilt Beach area back in 1990, and I retired there to live permanently as a resident in 2016. And through that period of time, which obviously is a number of years, I bought three different condo units on Vanderbilt Beach -- on Vanderbilt Beach. And, frankly, when I first got there, the Ritz-Carlton was there -- and I know these are some comparable properties that people have said should be included in the discussion. I think the Ritz-Carlton has never been a problem for me since 1990 when I stayed there for my first convention as a CPA convention. It just -- it never seemed like it -- it seemed separate from the Vanderbilt Beach community, and it also didn't take away from anything. We came back, you know, to visit many times. The Regatta popped up. It was -- it seemed a little bit high at the time, but let's be honest, the large setback there and the fact that it's way far away from Gulf Shore Drive made it seem a little bit high but really not that bad. And the Trieste, which was just discussed, when that went up, I've got to admit that my friends and I who came down to visit with us at one of our properties, we all thought, whoa, that was a little bit big. But then, again, it is in a gated community and it's pretty far away. It's up to the next street, and it's on the other side of the street, and it just doesn't seem like it's part of our community. But in all honesty, if this One Naples is allowed to proceed as originally proposed, it's going to bring that size, that density, and all these problems right in the middle of the neighborhood, and not only is it going to have all the problems that have been discussed by thousands of residents who have testified either through their representatives or individually or emails, it's going to bring all those things instantly to our neighborhood. But the real problem is, it's going to set up the precedence for Miami-like development up and down Gulf Shore Drive going forward, and this committee would be basically enabling, you know, Buzz's Lighthouse to buy a couple properties and put up a large condo, you know, the situation across the street -- MR. FRANTZ: You have 30 seconds. MR. DEARCHS: -- and put it right up the street. It's just bad. And the latest comment I'd want to make is nobody has addressed the traffic at the north end of Gulf Shore Drive by the park. That will be affected, and nobody -- none of the studies really address that, and I think that should be addressed because, clearly, it's going to be affected. I want to thank you very much, and please listen to the thousands of people and not the one developer. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 77 of 126 Thank you. MR. FRANTZ: Your next speaker is Diane Reed. Diane, are you there? Can you unmute yourself. (No response.) MR. FRANTZ: Diane, are you there? (No response.) MR. FRANTZ: Okay. Our next speaker is Rose Marie Pyott. Rose Marie, if you could unmute yourself. MS. PYOTT: I just did. Thank you. MR. FRANTZ: You have three minutes. MS. PYOTT: I live on Bayside Avenue. Very much against this project. It's just way too big for this spot there. We've been here quite a few years now, and it's a great place to live. This is not going to help anybody around here. The only people that are going to benefit from this is the developer. So really, I hope you really look at this hard, because once they ruin that spot, it's done forever. Thank you. MR. FRANTZ: Okay. We got one of our previous speakers that was unable to connect back online, so we're going to go back to Michael Roe. Michael, are you there? (No response.) MR. FRANTZ: Michael, are you able to unmute now? (No response.) MR. FRANTZ: Okay. Apologize for that. We will move on again. Next speaker is Mark Efrusy. Mark? MR. EFRUSY: Yes, I'm here. I'm here. MR. FRANTZ: You have three minutes. MR. EFRUSY: Yes. I'm Mark Efrusy. I'm a resident of the Beachmoor for the last six years and a resident of Florida. I'm a retired physician, gastroenterologist, and a professor of medicine at Midwestern University now emeritus. And my main concern, aside from all the architectural issues that have been brought up, but then the health issues, mainly what's going on -- last year at this time I think I would have looked at it a little differently, but we all now -- our whole lives have been turned upside down with this COVID thing. And if we look throughout the world, what are the risks for COVID? What are the major concerns? And, of course, we have age, we have comorbidities, we have ethnicity, race, income, et cetera, but the one thing that stands out throughout the world is density. And if we look at our own problems in Florida, where have the hotspots been? They've been in Dade County, Miami where density is a major issue. So what we have here is a situation where we're taking C-3 where we have 16 units per acre and literally doubling it. And, listen, I've noticed over the last six years here, almost an exponential growth in population and traffic, and this density on the beach during the season, it's wall-to-wall people. Well, that's not a bad thing. But when you're going to add -- now that we have this health situation, I think we have to re-think the way we build and the way we live. And to go now and develop this kind of density in that small area is a risk. We're really, basically, going to make it another Miami or another Dade. I think you've got to re-think this. It's a whole new era for all of us. And I've noticed in the past we've been compared to Venetian Village and to Pelican Bay. We're different. Vanderbilt is a different area, and the density has been relatively low comparatively speaking. I really want the Commission to look at this from a health standpoint. I think we cannot afford to double the density in a small area like that without putting ourselves at some risk. I thank you for your time. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 78 of 126 MR. FRANTZ: Your next speaker is Maureen Straight. Maureen, are you there? MS. STRAIGHT: I am. MR. FRANTZ: You have three minutes. MS. STRAIGHT: Thank you. My name is Maureen Straight, and I reside at 562 100th Avenue North in Naples Park. You have all heard the architectural and the setbacks and multiple reasons, legal and other. And from my perspective, I want to know, other than a bike lane, which is on the street that I already bike on, what is the benefit that this is going to bring to the community? I was -- you know, I know that the idea of a water park was introduced and maybe a chuckle, but there is no big green space down there. So developing requires that you give back something to the county. The only other issue that I have is it appears that the cart is being wagged by the horse. This amendment is written by the developer. It was not written by the county land management people, and I think that you have to take that into consideration when you consider the benefit. So I would like to see the developer list out, draw out the green space and the benefit to the people along this corridor. Thank you. MR. FRANTZ: Your next speaker is Kevin Dugan. Kevin, are you there? MR. DUGAN: Yes, I am here. Can you hear me? MR. FRANTZ: We can hear you, and you have three minutes. MR. DUGAN: Thank you. Good afternoon, Planning Commissioners. My name is Kevin Dugan. My family and I have owned and operated the Lighthouse Inn and Buzz's Lighthouse Restaurant for over 40 years. My family and I are in support of the One Naples development. I fully understand all of the controversy surrounding the One Naples development. I am born and raised in Naples and the Vanderbilt Beach area and currently help out at my family businesses here. I, myself, remember growing up here and how great Vanderbilt Beach was in the '80s. Great times. Great memories. If we could have only stopped the development then; however, I do feel the planning and development of the Vanderbilt Beach Road has been great for the area with mainly residential high-rise condos with limited commercial development. I believe that limited commercial development and mainly residential condos brought the majority of new residents to this area. I also credit that to be the main reason here at Vanderbilt Beach has not turned into a Miami South Beach or Fort Lauderdale Las Olas strip. I tell you this because I believe the One Naples residential development is in line with Vanderbilt Beach and not all the commercial development of the Miami South Beach and Fort Lauderdale Las Olas. The One Naples land area is currently zoned commercial, and the development uncertainty that could bring to this neighborhood may be a disaster. I am not against commercial development, as I believe that could help my family businesses, as more people to the area equal more potential customers. I, myself, like Vanderbilt Beach now currently but know that it cannot stay that way. Many people here who oppose the One Naples project want Collier County to turn down this development thinking no one will build commercial near Vanderbilt Beach. That is extremely risky and a total gamble for Collier County Commissioners to take. A commercial development would create a lot more noise, traffic, and, most importantly, change the fabric of Vanderbilt Beach. No matter what is built here, it will be very controversial. I feel the One Naples project with Stock Development is the most responsible and is the best fit for our area. I feel One Naples -- 5.A.a Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 79 of 126 MR. FRANTZ: You have 30 seconds. MR. DUBOIS: -- would raise property values, decrease traffic from the current commercial C-3 zoning, and blend into Vanderbilt Beach. For all these reasons, I am in support of Stock Development's One Naples. Thank you for your time. MR. FRANTZ: Your next speaker is Craig Chandler. Craig, are you there? MR. CHANDLER: There we go. How are we doing? MR. FRANTZ: Craig, you have three minutes. MR. CHANDLER: Excellent. Hey, thank you. My name is Craig, for the record. Also, for the record, I love Naples. So I'm going to talk about -- and you can see where I'm at. I'm here. I'm at the scene. So if this goes C-3, what's going to happen? Well, it's going to be a -- what the market bears. And right there is the Ritz-Carlton. That's the star of the show. And those people are paying 600, 1,500, 5,000, soon to be 10,000, 15,000 a night, luxury suites. And those people, plus the 4- to 5,000 people coming off Vanderbilt Beach every night will come off to the C-3 zoning, and the amenities will be here. That's why it's zoned for it. You've got a public parking lot. You've got a public beach, and this is public space. In my opinion, this is kind of a no-brainer. I mean, it's like, okay, is this land going to be for Collier County residents and their guests, or should this be private? Well, if it's going to be private, you know, get rid of the public beach and get rid of the public, you know, garage. That would make everything -- actually, that would make sense, but don't do that. All right. So I'm for C-3. We fear no restaurants here. What do you think's going to go in? I keep hearing you guys saying Beach Box, and then I find out that most of you haven't even been down here. Well, what's going to go in here are, like, $75 surf and turf, $75 a plate, $150 a plate. These are people with a lot of money to spend. They're going to come down here, they're going to spend it, and we're all going to have a good time. So, anyways, good luck, everyone. No matter what, this is still going to be an awesome place, but I am not for the rezoning. C-3 is going to be amazing. I wish I was over there so I could show you how beautiful the bay is, the lagoon. Good luck and thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: What just happened? MR. FRANTZ: Just to clarify for everyone else on Zoom, when you are speaking, we cannot see your video. So our next speaker is Rich Gallagher. MR. GALLAGHER: Afternoon. MR. FRANTZ: Hello, Rich. You have three minutes. MR. GALLAGHER: Thank you. By all the rhetoric and semantics, many of the arguments made by the petitioner and the opposition, as well as inquiries from you, the commissioners, focus on a single concept: Compatibility. Hence, I'll condense my comments into a single question with which I'll employee data cited by Stock Development in their own testimony at the public hearing on October 1st in which I'll pose to the Board and/or petitioner. Where else in all of Southwest Florida is there a building with a height of 208 feet rising up from a 50-foot setback for two lengths of 195 feet each immediately adjacent to a public sidewalk along which 400 pedestrians per hour walk to the beach in peak season? I implore the planning commissioners, if you can't answer that question, you shouldn't approve the petition. Thank you. MR. FRANTZ: Your next speaker is Maureen Gambocurta. Maureen, are you there? 5.A.a Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 80 of 126 MS. GAMBOCURTA: Hi. Can you hear me? MR. FRANTZ: We can hear you. You have three minutes. MS. GAMBOCURTA: Okay. I'm a resident of Beachwalk Gardens. Michael Seef had spoke earlier. We're halfway between Route 41 and Gulf Shore Drive. It's a gated condominium development. The traffic has been mentioned as one of the biggest concerns. They mentioned that redirecting traffic onto South Bay Drive would alleviate some of the traffic problem, and it would not. You still have the same number of cars going in and out of that development no matter where they put their entrance or not. It's the same volume. You're just redirecting it. Vanderbilt Drive has had drastic issues for years. Beachwalk Gardens has issues for years trying to make a left. We've requested a traffic light, and I've heard that we've been told that there's too many traffic lights already on Vanderbilt Beach Road, and we were denied it. If there's going to be any issues, we should have been addressed years ago with a traffic light there. This is just going to add more cars, more issues, and more problems just for the current residents there. Already, if we have to make a left, a lot of times can make a right and go down, and we come back up 91st Street. You're going to have more of that happening. The residents there are going to -- that's a residential neighborhood. You can't redirect traffic through residential neighborhoods. It just can't handle the volume. Saying that residential is better than C-3 for the traffic, you're still going to have increased volume dramatically either way. One more so than the other maybe, but there's an undeniable surge in traffic, period, on a congested road already that can't handle the current traffic. You keep mentioning that staff -- and they approved these changes or they're in support of it or whatever. My question to them is, where do they live? Do they have real-life -- do they live near this? Can they see this firsthand? Do they have to deal with the traffic, the potential deaths from traffic accidents with pedestrians or bikers or carriages, or do they have to deal with the density? Unless they're the ones living there, then they're not dealing with it. It's easy to approve something when you're not dealing with it. I keep hearing all these people that are in opposition to this, and I only heard one restaurant owner in support of it. You have to listen to the numbers of people that are against this. I don't know why we're changing the plan for one individual developer. And then I just heard very recently that the developer's writing the amendment that they want approved. That's effectively the spot zoning in a hidden way. They're saying the spot zoning can't come up until we go to the Circuit Court challenge. Well, if we challenge it -- MR. FRANTZ: You have 20 seconds. MS. GAMBOCURTA: -- they're going to say, oh, well, we've got this amendment that they're adhering to. Well, the amendment was changed so they adhered to it, and then they get their spot zoning through that means prematurely. They submitted a grandiose plan knowing full well it would have to be modified knowing that they'd have to make some concessions. So for appearance purposes, oh, yeah, we cut back our scaled plan. MR. FRANTZ: That's three minutes. MS. GAMBOCURTA: It's still in major excess. It's more than 100 percent over on the density, the setbacks, the heights. They have to adhere to the current regulations. I don't know why we're making any special consideration for one developer. We have rules for a reason. I'm questioning why would we have these zoning rules and other -- the development rules if they're not being adhered to? A small percentage increase maybe if they have a justification. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: You're past your three minutes, ma'am. MS. GAMBOCURTA: All right. Obviously, I'm opposed to this for all the reasons. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 81 of 126 CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Thank you. MR. FRANTZ: Your next speaker is Robert Burgess. Robert, are you there? (No response.) MR. FRANTZ: Robert, if you can unmute yourself. (No response.) MR. FRANTZ: We'll move on to the next speaker. Gail Morgan. Gail, if you could unmute yourself. MS. MORGAN: Can you hear me? MR. FRANTZ: We can hear you. You have -- you may be muting yourself again. MS. MORGAN: Yes. Yeah, I'm sorry. MR. FRANTZ: Okay. You have three minutes. MS. MORGAN: Gail Morgan. I live at 10951 Gulf Shore Drive. I'm opposed to this for all the reasons that everybody else has stated. I just think it will be awful. Thank you. MR. FRANTZ: Your next speaker is Linda Torni-Dabelstein. Linda, if you could unmute yourself. MS. TORNI-DABELSTEIN: Yes. Got it unmuted. MR. FRANTZ: You have three minutes. MS. TORNI-DABELSTEIN: I'm 271 South Bay, Barefoot Pelican. And I keep hearing everybody saying that Barefoot Pelican's 41 units per acre and at the Palms is so many per acre. Barefoot Pelican is under a thousand square feet per unit. The Palms is under 750 square feet per unit. Our footprint is nowhere near the size of the footprint that they're talking about for One Naples. I'm also very worried about the hospital capabilities with this new COVID, more people moving into town, permanently into town. It's -- it's absolutely obscene the size that they want to build this complex. My husband was in Naples NCH before COVID last year. We were in the emergency room for 18 hours before he got a room. That's -- and that was before COVID and was before season. That's all I have to say. You-all have to take us into account. We need our light. We need our air. We need our sunsets. Thank you. MR. FRANTZ: Your next speaker is Paul Smith. Paul, are you there? MR. SMITH: Yes, I'm here. Can you hear me? MR. FRANTZ: You have three minutes. MR. SMITH: Thanks. I won't need anywhere near that. I want to thank the Commission, first of all, for all your hard work and efforts. I realize you have a difficult decision to make. I hope you make it in favor of the residents who are voicing their opposition to the project. I can't add much to some of the more eloquent and informed and organized speakers, particularly at the beginning of this afternoon's hearings. But just a couple of points I think are important to reemphasize; that Stock knew the zoning regulations when they bought up the property, and I just think they should build within that, whether it's the commercial or scaled-back residential. You know, the zoning regulations are put in for a reason, and I don't think that just because you buy up a bunch of property and you're a big developer you should assume that you're going to get a variance for the zoning. I think the -- the excessive height and the minimal setbacks are particularly egregious in the plans that they're proposing. Another main problem I see is the traffic, which has been spoken about earlier also, and whether it's commercial, residential, whatever it is, the volume is already very heavy there. You 5.A.a Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 82 of 126 have one lane in each direction on Vanderbilt Beach Road, on Gulf Shore, and on Immokalee. And it's -- it's stretching the road infrastructure already as it is. And I think this would only make it worse. And just to -- in conclusion, just -- I spent a little time in the lower level of city government in my career, and there was sort of a tongue-and-cheek sort of motto when it came to making requests and requisitions for equipment and funding, and we would always kind of say ask for twice what you want, and you'll get two-thirds of what you ask for. And I think that's kind of Stock's motto also. If you do that and you get two-thirds what you ask for, you still end up way ahead, and I hope the Commission will not allow that to happen. Again, thanks for your time, and I reiterate my opposition to the project. MR. FRANTZ: Your next speaker is Julie Wyman. Julie, are you there? (No response.) MR. FRANTZ: Okay. We're going to move on to the next person. The next speaker is Patrick Murray. Patrick, could you unmute yourself? (No response.) MR. FRANTZ: Okay. We're going to move again. Our next speaker is Nancy Chism. Nancy, could you unmute yourself? (No response.) MR. FRANTZ: We appear to be losing some of our registered speakers. We're going to continue to move on. MS. CHISM: I'm here now. Can you hear me? MR. FRANTZ: We can hear you. You have three minutes. MS. CHISM: Thank you. There was no mute button until I spoke. I live in the Naples Park area, and my husband and I walk up to sunset several times per week, so we use that sidewalk on most nights. I'm not an expert on the technical issues here, but I do want to elaborate on the previous comments about the character of the neighborhood. I believe that this was stimulated for me by the discussions about the height of Trieste, Bay Colony, and the Ritz. And I wondered, why aren't we talking about the setbacks of those places, which in some cases are the high-water mark. When -- we're talking about height, but the character of the entrances and the grounds around those is really important. I also am motivated by a comment that was made by the Stock folks about the blight at the corner of the neighborhood, and I do take some offense about that and the sort of sarcastic question about, do the people in the Trieste go to the Beach Box. I think that if you look at the character of the north and south sides of Vanderbilt Beach Road, you see a very different socioeconomic level. And as a previous person at this hearing had said much more beautifully than I could, we're much more informal. We're lower socioeconomic status. We are not pretentious. To me, the Beach Box is people having fun. I know I'm not unanimous in that opinion from others in the Naples Park neighborhood. But these are modest-income houses. The people who walk up and down the street are pulling coolers, pushing strollers, walking dogs. I have been hit by a bicyclist on that because the sidewalk is already very narrow. So I want you to consider the character of the neighborhoods and to see this as a socioeconomic issue as well. For us to -- all that's been said about the height and the density and the setbacks I think are really important issues. MR. FRANTZ: You have 30 seconds. MS. CHISM: But I also think that one of the big issues is the character. And this is one of a few accesses to Vanderbilt Beach, to any beach, for the North -- North Naples community. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 83 of 126 There are a few pass-throughs between condos along Gulf Shore, but this and Bluebill are the only public access. It's a party place. It's a fun place. It's an informal place. MR. FRANTZ: That's three minutes. MS. CHISM: And to put very formal buildings on this site with upscale amenities and higher-income folks, I think, is out of character for the neighborhood. Thank you. MR. FRANTZ: Your next public speaker is Kathleen Groff. Kathleen, are you there? MS. GROFF: I'm here. Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak. My name is Kathleen Groff, and I'm a resident of Pine Ridge Estates with a young family, and we use Vanderbilt Beach quite frequently, and I am very opposed to One Naples as it's proposed. I think as many speakers have said before, that Vanderbilt (audio malfunction) character all of its own. I believe that this project is not in keeping with the character. I believe that the -- Vanderbilt Beach, I believe the setback is not in line with the character. I believe the height is too tall. I think that -- what are the other notes? Very quickly, I think Vanderbilt Beach has a charm, and I think Naples has a charm, and I would echo what other people have said, that I think if we develop too much, it will look very much like cities on the East Coast which are wonderful, but we have a different character in this town. And I think there's too much reduction -- there will be too much of a reduction of green space. And it appears, from what I've heard at this meeting and what I've heard other present residents say is that the goal of the present residents, the people who live here for years, we do not have the same goals in mind as the developer does. I think there are plenty of other places in Naples for this type of development. I do not believe that is on Vanderbilt Beach. And I think it will cut down on the privacy for residents that are there currently. My mother has a condo on Vanderbilt Beach which she stays two weeks out of the year, out of season. She rents it there. And it's October and November, and already, as people have said, the traffic -- the pedestrian traffic, which is wonderful, people out, like someone has said, pushing strollers, biking, rollerblading, and I think it would add to this to a dangerous level. And I appreciate your time. Thank you. MR. FRANTZ: Your next speaker is Michael Wrotniak. Michael, are you there? MR. WROTNIAK: I am here. MR. FRANTZ: You have three minutes. MR. WROTNIAK: Thank you very much. Firstly, thank you to the Commission. I appreciate your time and effort. I appreciate that this is a difficult situation. I own two condominiums on Gulf Shore Drive; one just south of La Playa and one on the north side, on the bay side. I'm not against development of the land and buildings in the area in question. I think, however, the density and the height issues are just too -- too much for the -- the space that's there. I'd also like to point out that in one of the buildings in which I own a condo, we have an extra condo that's a common area that the building has often talked about converting to a condominium which the association could then sell. And the feedback that we have gotten over the years was that because we would need two extra parking spaces and we do have an entire lot across the street from it, there's no way to get approval for that for a unit that already exists in the space. Two extra spaces can't get done, and we're considering something that's well beyond that obvious -- that -- the laws that are in place now regarding height and regarding density. So if the little guy can't do it, I don't think the big guys should be able to do it either. I'm not against the development, but it should be within the constraints that are already set 5.A.a Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 84 of 126 up and that were known. Thank you very much. MR. FRANTZ: Your next speaker is Julie Wyman. We're going to try Julie one more time. She has raised her hand. MS. WYMAN: Yes. Can you hear me? MR. FRANTZ: We can hear you, and you have three minutes. MS. WYMAN: Thank you. My name is Julie Wyman, and I'm a year-round resident of Pelican Bay. I'm not a lawyer. I'm just speaking as a reasonable and concerned citizen. I truly -- I don't understand why Collier County would give Stock .79 acres of public land needed to build his private One Naples. How would that be in the interest of the general public welfare? At 16 stories, One Naples, two skyscrapers are way too tall and dense and are not compatible with the Vanderbilt Beach neighborhood where it is located, and you cannot -- and it's not comparable with the Ritz and other Pelican Bay buildings across the street because they have open air spaces and are surrounded by acres and acres of conserved spaces, lakes, mangroves, and they have their own private beach access. High-density One Naples does not. Owners and friends will crowd already crowded Naples public beach right across the street. This could be a serious potential beach problem, and it must be avoided. Regarding C-3, I defer to you, Collier County Planning Commissioners, to protect us residents and taxpayers. We are not the experts to answer a question about 100,000 feet of commercial space. Do you think it would be fair? In conclusion, we should maybe be calling ourselves Save Naples. Perhaps Collier County should purchase this Stock property for the people. Collier County can afford it, and we can make it affordable. Thank you for listening. MR. FRANTZ: Your next speaker is Susan Burkhard. Susan, are you there? (No response.) MR. FRANTZ: We're having a little trouble connecting to Susan right now. Just give us one moment. Okay. We're going to come back to Susan. There may be an issue on our end. The next speaker is Muriel Longlade. Looks like that person has dropped off. I apologize. The next speaker is Raymond Parker. (No response.) MR. FRANTZ: Raymond, are you there? MR. PARKER: There we go; yes. This is Raymond Parker. I'm here. I appreciate you taking the time to let me speak. I'm a citizen in Naples Park. I've tried to listen in to almost 100 percent of the hearings that have gone on so far, and I really appreciate the work that everyone's doing to try and get this right. I'm very much against this development as it currently stands. It has nothing to do with the company that's doing it. It has everything to do with current zoning and how large a request and change it would make in that zoning area. So it's -- the setback is, of course, a concern. I'm a bicyclist, and there's just not enough room there for all the pedestrians, all the cars, all the bicyclists, strollers, and everything else. It's too large a footprint on too small a piece of property. And I urge that you make a recommendation to the Collier County Commissioners that this project not go forward in its current design; that the design be -- design changes be made to conform with current zoning, and that's it from me. I wish you all well, and have a good day. MR. FRANTZ: Your next speaker is Cathy O'Brien. Cathy, are you there? (No response.) 5.A.a Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 85 of 126 MR. FRANTZ: Cathy, can you unmute yourself? (No response.) MR. FRANTZ: Okay. We're going to move on to the next person. Nick Fiorentino. Nick, are you there? MR. FIORENTINO: Yes, I am. MR. FRANTZ: Okay. You have three minutes. MR. FIORENTINO: Thank you. Thank you. I was a little disappointed that you couldn't see where I was at, because I was standing on the beach in Vanderbilt. I have a condo in Gulf Breeze. Been here five years. Love it. What I don't hear enough being said is the effect it's going to have on the beach; the people, the traffic. In season here it's almost impossible to get out of our driveways in Gulf Breeze. From what I'm understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, is that Stock is going to have buses running his people to our beach and busing them there. Almost impossible. I don't know if any of you commissioners have been on our beach in season, out of season, any season. It's jampacked. You can't get in. You can't get out. In New Jersey where I live, I'm a contractor up there. We have an open space fund. What we do is we purchase land that we don't want developed, and the municipality, the county, buys it. Let's get that going here. A lady a couple before me said it perfectly: Make it open space. It's a beautiful piece of property. Stock's a great developer. It's just not what we need here. The traffic, the safety, the beach. Our number one asset in Florida, Naples, is our beach. We must protect it. With all due respect, we must protect it. I'm not sure how you guys work in, you know, your committee -- I don't even know if you're elected, appointed, but just remember, the people that you're working for, the people that every day are disagreeing with you on this project, about this project, are the ones that are going to elect you in or elect you out. So just remember who we're representing here. We're representing people, not the big developers. You guys are doing a great job, and I appreciate everything you're doing. But let's think about the beach, and let's think about the environment on this one. Thank you. MR. FRANTZ: The next speaker is Kristin Harvey. Kristin, are you there? (No response.) MR. FRANTZ: Kristin, are you there? (No response.) MR. FRANTZ: It looks like Kristin was unmuted for a moment and has muted again. We may be having trouble hearing from Kristin, but we'll move on to the next person and come back. Next person is Julie Fair. Julie, can you unmute yourself. Julie, are you there? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. It looks like we are possibly down to our last three public speakers. I'm going to read all of these last three names and allow anyone else on Zoom who was expecting to speak but who we may not have called to use the "raise hand" feature in Zoom. There's been quite a lot of people dropping in and out of the Zoom call. And so we've tried to track that but may have missed a few. Our next speaker is Ashraf Banoub. Ashraf will be followed by Jerry LeFemina, and we'll try again Kristin Harvey. If anyone else on Zoom has not spoken and we did not just call your name, please raise your hand. Okay. We're going to try Kristin Harvey one more time. Kristin, can you unmute 5.A.a Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 86 of 126 yourself? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Kristin, it looks like you might be speaking, but we cannot hear you on our end. MS. HARVEY: Can you hear me now? MR. FRANTZ: We can hear you now. You have three minutes. MS. HARVEY: Wonderful. Yes. My name is Kristin Harvey. I'm born and raised here in Naples, Florida. I've been alive for 58 years. My grandparents came here in 1948. I have watched the County Planning Commission come and go. I've seen the clearing of our woodlands. I have seen the clearing of our wildlife. I have seen our infrastructure not being expanded. I have seen no accommodations for the influx of new residents which pour in every year to Naples, and no influx of help with any of the cars. Now we're encroaching the Everglades. And I've seen Stock Development's arrival. I've seen them tear apart land. I've seen their properties go 50 percent without being fulfilled. Nobody's moving into their properties that they've torn down woodlands. They make their billions here and then they leave. And now this terrible opposing [sic] building here in Vanderbilt Beach. I live in Pelican Bay. I live at 1000 L'Ambience Circle and have to traverse down Vanderbilt Beach Road to get to my property. Sometimes the changing of the light takes four and five times. The traffic is horrible already. We already took down the Vanderbilt Beach chickee, which was another public access for people to go to the beach. That's gone. Now you want to do this. Please, Commission, stop this. Stop this enormous building from going into the Vanderbilt Beach area and ruining, ruining the beach. We are not Fort Lauderdale. We are not Miami. Enough is enough. What's already been approved in Wiggins Pass is horrific, the building that's going on there, and eventually the people are going to come through Pelican Bay, and it's going to clog up Pelican Bay, and they're going to end up putting up private entranceways. So now you're going to have traffic that's backed up on 41 because Pelican Bay doesn't want all of the Naples One [sic] people coming through to get to their homes because Vanderbilt Beach is impossible. Please consider this. I've been a resident here my whole life. I understand that people want the same piece of paradise that I've had my entire life when 41 was a shell road, but stop and consider this massive destruction to our beautiful beach community. Thank you. MR. FRANTZ: Okay. We had two people raise their hands in the chat. The next speaker will be Colin Kanar. Colin, can you unmute yourself? MR. KANAR: Yeah. Hello. MR. FRANTZ: Hello, we can hear you. You have three minutes. MR. KANAR: Okay. Hi. My name is Colin Kanar. And, you know, I just wanted to echo the sentiments of many of the people who are in total opposition to this project. I've been a Vanderbilt Beach resident for over 20 years. I worked in this community. We've raised our family in this community. I actually live directly across the bay from what would be these two towers and, full disclosure, they would completely occlude my view of the skyline. I look at the bay every day. There's wonderful sea life there. I can't imagine the size and density of docks and boats that they're proposing to put in and the extension of these docks out into the bay which, to me, is public space. The commissioners all seem to be in favor of this. And I recognize this may be a very difficult job for you to do, but you need to take another look at this and listen to the thousands of people who have called in in opposition. To echo the words of our president, if we don't win, this is rigged. And to the people with 5.A.a Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 87 of 126 their pejorative laughter about turning this into a park, what on earth would possibly be wrong with that? And how much opposition would anyone give to that? Just like at the opposite end of Vanderbilt Beach where, in fact, there is a park. This project is too tall. It's too dense. The setbacks are terrible. And you're comparing it to places like the Ritz-Carlton which have a huge vegetation buffer between them and Vanderbilt Beach. It isn't the same thing. It's like trying to put a large -- well, it is large. Not trying to. But just sort of packing in at the very end of a needle. The scope of this project, I don't know how many people have to stand up and say no before the commissioners understand -- MR. FRANTZ: You have 30 seconds. MR. KANAR: -- that this just should not be permitted. I thank you for your time. I clearly hope, again, that everybody does recognize you are representing the people, and the thousands of people who are in opposition to this are the people, not one developer. And many people have said exactly that, and you need to listen and you need to say no. Thank you. MR. FRANTZ: Your last speaker will be Joyce Kerridge. Joyce, are you there? MS. KERRIDGE: Yes, I am. Can you hear me? MR. FRANTZ: We can hear you. You have three minutes. MS. KERRIDGE: Thank you very much, and I thank you for your work and the opportunity to speak. My name is Joyce Kerridge. I live in the Trieste, which is in the Bay Colony community located inside the Pelican Bay community. I add my voice today strongly to the widespread opposition as expressed today throughout the conversations and statements. I stand with my neighbors in Naples Park and Pelican Bay to make sure that we continue to live in an environment that's safe for everybody regardless of whether you live north, south, east, or west. My primary concerns are with regard to traffic management, safety, and density. I am very concerned about people trying to find their way to Route 41 during an evacuation or just on a day-to-day basis, and the way that cars will be going through residential neighborhoods with very limited shoulder space, specifically Naples Park and Pelican Bay. I will tell you that every year I walk along Vanderbilt Beach Road, and there are consistently tire tracks in the grass areas in the soft shoulders where cars have had to pull off to avoid an accident. Fortunately, we have not had anyone hurt thus far. And I tell you that's a regular occurrence. There's no room for more traffic. I don't think most of us are adverse to the development of this site. It makes sense. Something has to be done there. Let's do something that's fair and equitable. I assure everyone that the people within Bay Colony and Pelican Bay do visit the Beach Box, and we go to Buzz's Lighthouse, and we love it. We love the neighborhood feel. That's why we bought here as opposed to down by Venetian and downtown and certainly on the East Coast of Florida. I thank you for your time and consideration. I'm obviously adamantly opposed to this development as it stands right now. Thank you. MR. FRANTZ: That was your final speaker. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Thank you. So, Rich, you're on. MR. YOVANOVICH: I am on, and I appreciate it. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Do you want to break before? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Before we start? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Yeah. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 88 of 126 MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I just clarify? I'm assuming we're done with all the public comment. I'm going to be doing -- CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- my rebuttal, and you'll ask whatever questions you have of my team, and then you'll deliberate. Am I -- do I have the process down? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: May I ask. Rich, you thought that your comments would last a certain period of time, correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. I'm hopeful -- and I don't know what you-all's schedule is. I would rather than come back, but I also would rather not start and then have to come back. If I'm -- if we're going to have to come back, I'd rather just do my rebuttal right before you do your discussion. So I don't know what your timeline is. You know, we probably have about 45 minutes. I can do it quicker if necessary so we can get done today, but I'm at your -- how much time you have. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Personally, I think you should just take as long as you need, and we should finish today. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The only thing I did ask is, after you're done, I want James to come up and clarify the staff recommendation, how it differs from the proposal, because there is -- there are staff recommendations. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's fine. No, I'm assuming staff is -- when I said "the public," I mean, we're not going to go back on Zoom, we're not going to let -- we're not going to let their experts talk again. We're not going to let -- CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: No. MR. YOVANOVICH: I mean, we're -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I believe we're at the point where it's just your rebuttal and then staff clarification. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: The public hearing will be closed now, and it will just be -- COMMISSIONER FRY: It still looks like we would go beyond 5:00. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER FRY: Which is fine with me, but it's important to establish whether the other -- our other commissioners can stay and are willing to stay and if we can attempt to get it done today. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah. I'm -- as far as I'm concerned, I'm willing to stay as long as we need to to get it done, but I would like to know how long the rebuttal might take, and I do want to be respectful, frankly, of the staff. If we're going to be here till late, I'd like -- you know, I'd hate to have them stay too late. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: You're the nicest new member we have here. COMMISSIONER VERNON: It's easy with you. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: A lot of us say we're going to stay here till we're finished. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I thank you for being concerned about staff. I never was concerned. I think we ought to take a break, though -- short break before Rich starts. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Yeah, 10 minutes? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Do you have a guess how long you'll go? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I'm going to -- 45 minutes-ish. Maybe I can do a little less. I'm going to talk to my team beforehand. I want to hit some points, but I don't want to belabor any points. COMMISSIONER FRY: So all the commissioners able to stay to get it done? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Let's do it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We're here. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 89 of 126 MR. YOVANOVICH: Great, thank you. (A brief recess was had from 4:03 p.m. to 4:14 p.m.) MR. FRANTZ: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Everybody, please take their seats. Okay. You ready? MR. YOVANOVICH: I think so. Well, thank you for your patience and time. This is probably -- it's got to be a record for me, the longest project. I thought Rivergrass was long, but this one went a little bit longer. Our lineup in rebuttal is we're going to -- you're going to hear from Bob Hall, who's the actual architect of the project, to take you through the site plan and the vision and how we arrived at what we have, then Bob Mulhere will address some of the planning comments that were raised by public speakers, and then, finally, we'll have Jim Banks -- I'll have Jim Banks address transportation concerns. Hopefully, we've anticipated many of your questions in our rebuttal presentation. But if we haven't, obviously I know you're not shy about asking us questions as we go along. So I'm going to turn it over -- I'm going to turn it over to Bob Hall and see if I can get one of my consultants to stop talking. COMMISSIONER FRY: But, Rich, you got us excited. We thought we had the prospect of listening to you for 45 minutes. MR. YOVANOVICH: You don't get me for 45 minutes. I've given them each three minutes, and then I will take the bulk of it. MR. HALL: Good afternoon. Wow. Three days. Three years, really. Good afternoon, Madam Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. At the risk of being mugged in the parking lot, I'm the architecture of One Naples. My name, for the record, is Robert Hall. I'm the president and CEO of CGHJ Architects. I'm supposed to get my name slide up there so you can take a look at it. Since I'm the new face that you guys haven't heard from, I'm going to tell you a little bit about me, my firm, and our history in the area. CGHJ Architects was founded in 1975 as Design Advocates. We started coming to Naples shortly thereafter. I was a 20-year-old college student in architecture, and I took a summer job there, and I've never left since. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Can you move the microphone. MR. HALL: Sure, sure. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm sorry. MR. HALL: That's all right. No problem. And I've never left since except to attend college while working and trying to grow up. Still working on that last part. While attending college and working between semesters, I received my Bachelor of Design in 1979 and my master's from University of Florida in 1989. I became a licensed architect in 1992 and a partner that same year. I was the executive vice president and director of design from then until becoming president and CEO in 2016 after the retirement of the firm's founder and my mentor, Jerry Kurtz. I design all of my projects and take very seriously their roles in the communities in which they reside. A lot of slides to get through here. During 45 years in practice, my firm has designed projects throughout the U.S. with many significant projects constructed in the Naples area since the late '70s. I have personally spent most of my professional career designing dozens of residential and mixed-use projects in Naples, Collier, and Lee Counties for many sophisticated developers such as Stock, WCI, London Bay Homes, and many others, and continue that practice today. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 90 of 126 I have lived in Collier County at various times -- in Tampa now -- over those last 40 years. My wife and I still own a condo here at Cypress Woods, although we're trying to sell it. The next few slides are going to illustrate some of the communities that you may be familiar with and recognize. Whoops, went a little too fast. This slide is going to show you Cove Towers at Wiggins Pass up in the upper left. Project was built with WCI from about the beginnings of the 2000s to about the middle of the 2000s. The project on the far right is one of the first buildings in that five-building development. The project in the lower left is Altaira, built for WCR Lennar in the Colony. Just finished a couple years ago. Project in the top is Grandview for London Bay Homes that has the foundation and the ground on Fort Myers Beach and kind of waiting for COVID to stop so we can finish the project. The project in the bottom is another project that came before the Planning Commission and building commission -- or County Commission many years ago. Rich and I worked together on that one. It's called Aqua. It's also in the Wiggins Pass area. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Yovanovich, I'm not really clear how this is rebuttal testimony. MR. HALL: I'm just trying to define my firm. MR. YOVANOVICH: He's giving his expertise, and then he's going to get into the questions that were raised about how the towers fit in in the community and how the setbacks work. So he's just giving a little background into who he is. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. I was just wondering, because there's no architectural drawing or renderings as part of the PUD, so... MR. YOVANOVICH: But he's going to get into the site plan and how he does planning and -- MR. HALL: I'm just trying to introduce myself. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. MR. HALL: Thank you. Quickly, this is the Seasons at Naples Cay. This is Sun Seer (phonetic) in Olde Naples. Pelican Isle Yacht Club. Just trying to see if you recognize any of these projects. The Tropics on Venetian Bay. Barefoot Beach Club. Lots of projects in Pelican Bay. Bridgewater up at Little Hickory. Bayshore Memory Care on Immokalee Road. So now into the content. What we're here to talk about today are two main primary principles for our design. In our view, that's community context and complementary design. What do we mean by community context? Every good planner and architect will advise that the design and planning must take into account the contextual surroundings. What can I see from the site? Who are my neighbors, both adjacent and close by? What is their use and compatibility to my use, and how can I complement and enhance that adjacency, that community fabric while still designing for my client and my end-user. I'm going to play a little video here for you. It's about 30 seconds. It's just a 360-degree panorama. This was taken just a few weeks ago at about 25 feet off the ground in an aerial drone. What we're trying to show you here is just the surrounding site. I think everybody is very familiar with the neighborhood. We've talked a lot about it today, but you have yet to see things like this. So what do you see? I see a picture of high-rise and mid-rise mostly residential-type buildings in close proximity or in context with one another. This mixture is both compatible and complementary. Bob Mulhere's going to talk a little bit later more about the planning aspects of that, and I'm just going to try to focus on the architecture. So following this video, you're going to see some still shots that sort of zoom in on a few of these particulars. So we have a series of still shots here that were taken at various heights either at eye level 5.A.a Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 91 of 126 from the ground, 25 feet from the ground, or from aerial drones higher. On the left you see the west to Gulf Shore Boulevard about 25 feet off the ground looking toward Vanderbilt Beach. You see the Beachmoor, and to the right you see another Vanderbilt condominium. In the center top slide, you see the community context that shows both sides of Vanderbilt Beach Road. This is important to point out. We've been talking about context and compatibility for days. What you see in this is the Ritz-Carlton, Trieste, you see the Remington, you see other buildings of Bay Colony, you also see the Regatta and other buildings on Vanderbilt Beach. We look at the right top slide, you see north on Gulf Shore Boulevard. Again, a mixture of mid-rise and high-rise residential, mostly, uses. In the bottom left corner, this is from the main corner of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Gulf Shore Drive. When you look east, what do you see? You see the Beach Box, you see the Regatta, and you see Trieste. When you look south to the Ritz-Carlton, and you see Bay Colony beyond. Again, a mixture of high-rise and mid-rise; mostly residential uses. One of the few exceptions to that is right dead center of the site you see probably the biggest commercial use on the property; DaRuMa. It's going to end up, and at the end of our presentation, as looking kind of out of place, I think, but there it is. It's probably the only big commercial use that would be left if this project were approved. And, of course, what you see in the background is you see lower-scale, mid-rise, and high-rise residential, and a lot of that use is nonconforming and at much higher densities than what we're proposing. These are additional, in the last slide, of still shots. But if you look at the upper left and the lower left, this is an important point, because this is at the entry to One Naples, the one we discussed earlier today that is across from the county parking garage. So if I stand at that entrance to One Naples, what do I see? I look out to the right, and I see the Ritz-Carlton and Bay Colony. Photo to the bottom left, if I look to the left from the entry, I see the end of Regatta, and I see the Trieste in the distance. If I go to the other corner of the site, it's South Bay and Gulf Shore Drive. I look south and see the Ritz and the Bay Colony. Again, high-rise, residential buildings. As I look south to the Ritz and Bay Colony from center of the site, this is where our video was taken from looking back at the parking garage. So what is the vision for One Naples? It's presenting a vision that doesn't reinvent a community but complements. That's an important word; complements its legacy. Architecturally, to me, this means designing buildings and their landscape so as to enhance and complement the surrounding community. It's about reconnecting the existing neighborhood fabric with new public walkable, bicycle, and drivable experiences while enhancing its natural beauty and architecture. That doesn't automatically mean duplicating Mediterranean red roofs or 12-story beige buildings but rather providing complementary and comparable design that flows within the surrounding context. Back to the context. We showed you an aerial just a few minutes ago. This is that same aerial from a little bit higher up. Kind of defining what we believe the context is. It is mostly high-rise, mid-rise, residential development. So what are the definitions of complementary and complement? As an adjective, complementary is combining in such a way to enhance and emphasize the qualities of each other or another. You're going to hear this later on well. To complement as a noun, a thing that completes or brings to perfection. We're seeking to do both of those. So how does One Naples address community context and complementary design? It's all about building placement, and they're critical to complementary architecture. We've talked a lot about numbers. We've talked a lot about setbacks. We've heard all the public enraged by the setbacks. We've talked about 25 feet. We've talked about 15 feet. We've talked about all kinds 5.A.a Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 92 of 126 of feet. We've talked about 87-foot-tall walls next to a sidewalk. A lot has been said in this testimony. All I want to do in the next few minutes is try to explain how I, as the architect, try to take my program and make it fit best with the site. So what you see by these images -- and I'm just trying to point out a couple of very important factors. There is a 15-foot buffer that's required. We have a 15-foot buffer. What we've chosen to do is to combine that with the right-of-way landscape maintenance agreement so we tie the landscaping together and completely make the garage podium disappear. A lot of people have poo-poo'd the idea of landscaping won't hide a building. I submit to you that it will, and if done in the proper way, it is what makes this work. I'll explain more about that. But, specifically, the 25-foot setback on Tower 2 to the south and east is only at one point along the building. The setup of the buildings and their plan and their curving nature is that that 25-foot setback is in one point, one spot, and it curves back up to about 55 feet of setback. If we look at Tower 1, it's 35 feet from the property line to, again, one single point. Then that falls away to a 100-foot setback and more. So what I mean by all this is that it's not just about the minimum required numbers. Heights and setbacks are only part of the story. It's knowing where to put them. It's knowing how to use them. And I've just explained to you what those numbers are. And the curving nature of the site plan and tower buildings respect the community importance and natural flow of this defining intersection. And this way sense of place is possible. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I do need to step in at this point, because that rendering is not part of your PUD. That may be how they're planning on it, but that doesn't represent the minimums that are currently in your PUD development standards. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I jump in for a second? I anticipate, in response to Mr. Pires' comment, that we will attach the conceptual building layouts as part of the PUD. It's already in Exhibit G, as you know, Heidi. But we will -- I'm just telling you, we're planning on doing that later in the presentation. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Setbacks and so forth? MR. OLIVER: Yes. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. Perfect. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Madam Chairman? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So the point being that it's then -- you have to go in compliance with that plan? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt the architect's flow. But the answer would be yes, that would be part of the document. So when he finally designs the building, we deliver it according to what we're showing you. Because Mr. Pires' comment, which was legitimate, you could read the document, and it could be one big building lined up right on the road. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: At 25 feet. MR. YOVANOVICH: At 25 feet. And what we're showing you, we're committing to that's -- that's -- again, not to use their term. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: That's okay. You've satisfied me. I just wanted to know what the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: That's the context. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- meaning of -- yeah, of attaching it. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: The renderings they're providing you today provide more of the detail that you would get at the Site Development Plan stage probably, as you know, in an 5.A.a Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 93 of 126 architectural. So I think Rich is committing to provide some attachment that's going to commit to the architectural renderings and the setbacks that they're representing to you today. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, yeah, the setbacks, for sure. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Right now. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know that we have the final architectural down. But the setbacks, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just for clarity, typically, they're not required to give us this kind of detail in a rezoning, but they're committing to do so. MR. YOVANOVICH: Say that one more time. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Typically, you're not required to give us this kind of detail in a rezoning, but you're committing to do so with the submittal of these? MR. YOVANOVICH: You're going to get what we're presenting, okay. We're not doing a bait-and-switch showing you these beautiful pictures and then building something different. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. HALL: Well -- and just to take that a bit further, most of the things we're showing you today you've already seen. You've seen this site plan. I merely wanted to make a point of the 25-foot and 35-foot setbacks we've been discussing so that I could clarify it to the Board. But Rich is right, all of that is intended, planned, and will be submitted. COMMISSIONER FRY: May I interrupt you with -- MR. HALL: Certainly. COMMISSIONER FRY: Just because -- so your assertion is that 15 feet from the sidewalk is a 35-foot parking structure, but that will be -- will disappear because of landscaping? MR. HALL: Well, I'm going to get into the parking structure a little bit, and that might help clarify. COMMISSIONER FRY: Yeah. I don't want to pull you off your pace, but -- MR. HALL: Not a problem. I'm glad to answer the questions finally, because I have heard all of this for many days now and would like to respond. The parking structure is 30 feet tall, all right -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. MR. HALL: -- to its roof. Then it has some handrails, railings, landscape planter walls, those kinds of things, that take us above 30. That's why we're asking for the deviation to 35 feet because we want to be -- we want to make that condition known to you. And I have this a little bit later, but the parking garage is at 30 feet because of FDEP and the commercial use on the second floor. We've talked a lot about 21 feet and 20.4 feet, and we've talked a lot about feet. I want you to kind of understand where that comes from. Basically, the roads around this property are at around Elevation 4. That's above sea level. We're planning our ground-level parking to be about 6. So we can get drainage to work, all those kind of things. We're basing that from six feet. Then we've got to get to 20.4 to the underside of any structure to hold up the second floor. That's where FDEP comes in. So we're at 20.4 feet to the bottom of structure and about 21 and a half feet, then, to the surface of that second floor. Then we have a commercial level at that very end of South Bay and Gulf Shore Drive that needs to be architecturally about 14 feet tall. So we've got about 16 and we've got about 14. That gets us to 30 feet. That's how tall the garage is. And that's what we are concealing with two layers of landscaping; the layer that is our 15-foot buffer and asking for the LMA right-of-way landscaping to combine that. I think you're going to see some other renderings where I want to talk about that specifically, so if I might just move forward. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is that two stories of parking or three? MR. HALL: It's two stories of parking. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 94 of 126 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I see. Thank you. MR. HALL: And, of course, you know -- this has also been discussed and is on lots of other exhibits from the opposition and even from the county, you know, parking garages, heck, we could do 10-foot floors, but I can't meet any of the other requirements. So the first floor has got to be nearly -- nearly 16 feet tall, 15-and-a-half exactly. We'll probably get it to 16 just to make the structure, drainage, all of those other things that have to work when we're really doing the building. So 16 and 14 for commercial is how you get to 30. A little bit of handrail. We could probably do it in three-and-a-half feet, but we're asking for five just to keep within, you know, not having to come back. So we were about ready to talk about the third-level amenity deck above the second -- the two-story parking podium blends its lushly landscaped and appointed amenities with that of right-of-way and buffer areas for a virtually seamless transition. That's what I just explained to you. The two-story garage podium has been immersed in a purposely dense and mature buffer. We're not planting plants that are three weeks old and hoping they grow. I mean, we're going to the expense to do this for a reason, and it really is to create human scale and to conceal the parking garage. We're already taking all the parking in the property, except for a few guest spaces, and allowing them to be completely concealed; not viewed by anyone. The garage is enclosed. And in order to buffer that from the neighborhood, we're doing this dense landscaping. That's a really important point, and it's not something you would see necessarily in a commercial project. We'd have a 15-foot buffer, put our trees at 40 feet on center, and move on with parking. Let's see here. Where was I? Anyway, I was about to say the articulation of beautiful layering of the appropriate plantings at the hand of my colleague Hunter Booth, landscape architects, has rendered the base of One Naples almost unnoticeable. Our dramatic fountains, green walls, and public art plaza provide a much-needed oasis for those walking, biking, and driving to and from the beach at a congested corner. There's been a lot of talk -- and I'm going to get into it in a minute -- about, why don't you put commercial right on the corner. Good brief, all we've been talking about is how congested and how dangerous this corner is. What we're trying to do is ease the tension; allow that to be a public place of -- an oasis, something that is set back, something that is calm, casual, has the sound of water, has landscaping. Plus all the traffic improvements; the combination of the turning lane, the bike paths. All those things tend to calm that area down a bit. And we've decided to put the commercial at the other end at South Bay and Gulf Shore. So I've already kind of talked about this, but I'm just going to read this paragraph. It is important to clarify the need for -- reason for Deviation No. 1. The deviation of height from 30 to 35 feet is due to the requirements of FDEP for the first habitable floor or base flood elevation and the commercial uses on that floor. The nearly 16 feet in height of the first floor is due to FDEP, and the 14 feet above that for a minimum commercial use places the roof of the garage at 30 feet above grade. The additional five feet of space is required for landscape planter walls, guardrails, and wind screens. Those features are composed of decorative glass railing and architectural walls. Another important corner, which we've been alluding to is the public access to the commercial needs. The corner at South Bay and Gulf Shore Drive provide an important point of public access to the commercial uses of the project. As we discussed at a previous meeting, we have provided complete and accessible means of ingress and egress at this important corner with an open architectural stair as well as an enclosed egress stair and conditioned elevator lobby. These lead to both the real estate office and coffee/sandwich shop and sundry store, including outdoor terraces with tables and seating at the second level. Human scale. That really is what this project is about. Even though we have a lot of 5.A.a Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 95 of 126 opposition about big behemoth buildings. Human scale. It is what the pedestrian, bicyclists, or motorist perceive about building height and mass. You don't sit back in a helicopter and look at building heights. It is how any project is perceived on a daily basis. The placement of sidewalks, bike paths, lighting, roadways, and access points create neighborhood connectivity through design. The thickness and continuity of landscape buffers conceal parking and blend buildings with the ground plane. So I'm just going to take you through a few of these to let you feel that. So as we look at the intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and South Bay, walking, cycling, lighting, landscaping enhance the community. This is approaching the entrance directly across from the garage for the county. I want you to look at this slide, because you notice landscaping at the third floor where it's kind of red and has some palm trees above that. That's actually landscaping at the third level, helping to create that transition to blend the entire base of the building with the ground plane. This is the project entrance. It's just showing textured paving, a public access, and lush and mature landscaping. This is looking at that corner. I mean, you're looking at the garage. I don't think you see it. I don't. I mean, that's by design. That's intended. Again, as we move along Vanderbilt Beach Road toward the west, you can see the very tops of the handrail. You can see that there's something back there, but we're not putting a 45-foot wall on the setback of 15 feet, which, as the opposition has stated, is a 45-foot wall. It's a 30-foot wall with a handrail. And, of course, we talked about the corner fountain with public art and a chance to get a respite, have a bench, be able to sit, wait for the traffic signal that we're going to add to help cross the street to go to and from the beach. COMMISSIONER FRY: Sir, why don't the -- why don't those renderings show the vertical height of the buildings? MR. HALL: Well, because what I'm talking about right now is I'm talking about human scale, so I'm trying to show you human scale. We have many renderings that show the building full height from all kinds of different directions but in context. COMMISSIONER FRY: Would not -- MR. HALL: I'm not here to get you -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. HALL: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER FRY: Would not a full view of the height of the building from this level be context for us to evaluate this project? MR. HALL: Sure, it would be, and we do have these heights or these full-size drawings that -- you've seen the renderings. I'm going to show you them again as we get through this. I'm trying to show you about human scale and what the ground plane is in this discussion that I'm having right now, okay. All right. Again, just moving north on Gulf Shore Boulevard toward the commercial end, what you see there. These are just internal roads showing the same kind of connectivity and human scale of bike paths, sidewalks, and landscaping. These are important elements. This is also the main arrival, which is a public plaza. All of the streets through here are public, and they've been improved dramatically from what is there now in terms of bicycles, lighting, safety, landscaping, all of that walkable, bicycle communities. This happens to be the arrival plaza at the towers. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Excuse me. MR. HALL: Yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Madam Chair. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Go ahead. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 96 of 126 COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So what you're saying is that pool, for instance, at the center would be -- like you could -- the public can just walk up there and enjoy that or no? MR. HALL: Yeah. We prefer you don't throw quarters, but yeah -- or pennies. But this is all public. I mean, this is a public park within the project. It's all accessible by the public. Now, the minute you go up the handicapped ramp to get to the top floor arrival, you kind of need a reason to be there. To get through the door, you kind of need a reason to be there. But the ground plane is all public. The sidewalks are all public. We've tried to take the existing fabric and encourage it, enhance it, make it walkable. Today it's a mishmash. I mean, when you look on South Bay Drive, you basically have, you know, pavement edge with no gutter, no drainage. I mean, it's -- it needs -- it needs to be, you know, brought to life. This is trying to bring all of it to life. So it's much more than about 208-foot-tall buildings. It's much more than about setbacks and density. It's about trying to bring, you know, a contextual neighborhood and complete that corner. That really is what that is about. So this is what I mean by showing the buildings in context. You know, if I show you an elevation of just the buildings, you're going to go, wow, that's tall, because it is by itself. If you look at it in the context of its surroundings that we tried to talk about earlier, it blends. It's compatible. It's comparable. This is looking south from the other direction. This is looking from over the bay back toward the gulf. You know, there are the buildings. There are the buildings in context with Regatta, Trieste, the Ritz, and the buildings even along Vanderbilt Beach that, by the way, there are some 15- and 16-story buildings along Vanderbilt Beach. They're not all small. They're not all 12-story and 2- and 5-. There are examples all around here within 15, 1,600 feet of the project where buildings are 20 stories, 12 stories, 15 stories. We're asking for 16. There's another in-context rendering of the project. Again, we thought it was important at this level of the Planning Commission and a zoning request to show you this in the community. I'm not here to win an architectural award for how good looking the elevation is or what that means. Yes, it's 208 feet tall, and that's from the very ground around it. As a matter of fact, that four-foot road is where that's measured from, and that's to the very tippy top of the aircraft light that's on top of the elevator core. So the building isn't 208 feet. It's 208 feet to the elevator core. It's 180 feet zoned, okay. Those are important distinctions to make. And when we looked back at that site plan and you saw how those setbacks are at tangent points and that the buildings step back and radius and curve to increase the setbacks. It depends where you measure the setback, right? Most of the building's at 100 feet back from the setback. All right. We're going to -- again, another contextual rendering. It's just northwest over Pelican Bay. So we've talked a lot about -- and I'm glad it was brought up earlier so I wouldn't have to remind everybody about host of horribles. When I heard that from Mr. Stuart, I thought, wow, that's a really cool title. I've got to remember that one from when I explain some of the host of horribles that have been presented, one of which was the commercial project is only a threat. We're going to talk about that. I have my own host of horribles. When I look at the site -- and this is not to say it's blighted. I won't say it's blighted. People live there. But it has been disparate zoning. It has been neglected by the plan, Comprehensive Plan, and the zoning for the area. It's surrounded by residential. Residential is everywhere you can see. Most of it is single-family. Lots of it is multifamily. Lots of it is mid-rise and high-rise residential. So I want to talk a little bit about the disparate zoning uses and the incoherent fabric does 5.A.a Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 97 of 126 not make a neighborhood. Also we're going to talk a little bit about misleading models and renderings. We're going to talk a little bit about the SVB corner commercial at Vanderbilt Beach Road and Gulf Shore is also an inappropriate model. And we're going to -- we talked a little bit about the 30-foot setback argument. We think that's misleading. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I don't understand what -- SVB, what is that? MR. HALL: That is Save Vanderbilt Beach. It just saves me a lot of typing and stays on the slide. I apologize. I should try to write those out. I'll try to say them. So let me just take these one at a time. A commercial project is only a threat. Mr. Stuart's contention that Stock Development threatened the community with a commercial project is unfounded in my view. The mere thought of a by-right development was not even presented to his client, although the current C-3 zoning clearly allows for a project of significant size, the county assuming over 150,000-square-foot project. We have also studied the property and have determined that a more realistic proposal of 100,000 square feet, as has been talked about a lot today and before, is more than possible. It has about 72,500 square feet of retail space and 27,500 square feet of five restaurants and all the parking needed for it without vacating the roads. It's not a threat. It's reality. So this is a little boring here, but I'm just going to show you, and I'm going to glide through this, but I'm going to read this first. Disparate zoning and incoherent fabric does not make a neighborhood. The Comprehensive Plan and Planning and Zoning recognize these disparities. Our contention is that even though the existing C-3 zoning can and does allow for significant entertainment and shopping development, we contend that the zoning has become the elephant in the room. We are surrounded by residential development, even though the closest of our neighbors exist as nonconforming and at much higher densities. C-3 is not the best and most appropriate use for the site, we would agree. A residential mixed-use rezoning is the only sensible outcome, as it is the most compatible and complementary to the surrounding context of the community. High-rise and mid-rise multifamily residential at compatible densities and height are appropriate. And I just will kind of go through those pictures. You-all have seen the site but, in all due respect to those folks that are the neighbors, you know, immediately on the property, we want to support that. You're living in a residential building surrounded by vacant lots, some of which are vacant because my client bought the property and is trying to bring it up, and you have other commercial uses that are disparate. And the ones that are here that serve the public and serve the community we agree with. You know, the real estate office is moving. Matter of fact, they've wanted to move to the other end. Stock has tentative agreements with them. A coffee shop. And we thought because of the 7-Eleven or convenience store that a sundry part so that people going to and from the beach still have that ability to purchase those kinds of things. We're not trying to put in a large commercial center. I don't think it's appropriate. That's why we originally asked for 25,000, because you do tend to want to put a number in that you can live with. We're really probably less than 10,000 square feet, which we have stated. Probably closer to five when we're all said and done. What we're showing now is about 4,000 square feet. It might grow a little bit to handle the sundries and those kinds of things, but that's important. Again, you know, you have disparate zonings. Some of these existing residential don't meet current zoning, but they're here. They're here because they were built. People live in them, right? But the way to fix this is to make it all residential. It's the best use. All right. Our friends at Barefoot Palms and Barefoot Pelican I think know that. And, of course, they have some concerns, and we're trying to meet those concerns. We have been since day one. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 98 of 126 When we started with communication with Barefoot Pelican at some of those meetings, our setback away from them increased from 10 to 15 to 20 to 25 to 30 feet. And when they talk about an 87-foot-tall wall next to them, 87 feet tall is not the wall next to them. The overall actual height is -- or actual height is 87 feet measured from the street, again, to the tippy top of the elevators that are in the center of the building. The wall adjacent to them, or to the lighthouse, is only 77 feet, just to make that clear. It's also not a blank red wall that you saw earlier. It actually has windows in it. It will be your neighbors. And it's not blocking anybody's view. The primary-view windows out of Barefoot Pelican look out to the water. There are virtually no side windows to speak of that are largely view kind of windows. So a lot's been taken into account to try to alleviate concerns of the neighbors. I know we talked a lot about that over the course of this project. We heard some testimony earlier today -- I'm getting a little off track, but it's important to describe -- about view corridors and view cones. We've worked pretty hard to get this project and these towers and the marina buildings to not block views. It is a vacant piece of property that does exist between the Trieste and the Gulf of Mexico. We're not blocking the view to the Gulf of Mexico. We are using a portion of it to get our own view of the Gulf of Mexico. But when you take view cones from the Trieste, they're like this (indicating). When you take view cones from Regatta -- we heard earlier testimony about the angled walls of the Regatta buildings. This project does virtually little to change their view cones; virtually little. We heard testimony before that 41-some units were going to be affected. We disagree with that. All right. So one of the other host of horribles, the misleading models and renderings. The model that is -- I thought would be here today. So for the last two-and-a-half days but is only two days that it sat here in front of you. I'm not sure what it did to affect your views on things, but I think it's misleading or was misleading. I'm not arguing that it's not to scale or not even an inaccurate representation of the existing or proposed buildings. I have no way of knowing. So we'll have to trust Mr. Stuart, just not as much as I trust Mr. Yovanovich. The trouble I have with this model -- you're supposed to laugh at that point. I have "haha" right here. COMMISSIONER FRY: That's one. MR. HALL: That's one, yeah, yeah. All right. Anyway, the trouble I have with this model is that it's misleading because it lacks any true context. That's what we've been talking about here today. If you recall -- it would be great to be pointing to it, but you see the image -- it doesn't even show all of Regatta, much less anything south of Vanderbilt Beach Road or, for that much, anything north on Gulf Shore Boulevard or the Ritz-Carlton. You can't tell me that those things aren't in context. All right. So although I don't necessarily dispute the accuracy of the model, the model's scale, I do strongly object to its chosen scale of 1/32nd of an inch equals one foot without showing community context and proposed architectural character. That's an important point. That scale, if he were to show all the context, it would be about eight feet square. You'd need a bigger table, but that would be an important thing to show. In my contention, this has been used as a device to conjure negative reactions. Naturally. You heard the opposition showing -- showing high-rise buildings with no other immediate adjacent examples, such as the Ritz or Trieste, for example. The One Naples buildings have purposely been shown as faceless boxes of white masses with no consideration to facades, fenestration, or detail. We tried very hard in our renderings to show all of that. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 99 of 126 We understand the intent of a mass model. We get that. But if it's a mass model, then make the masses the same. Great purpose was taken to render the existing buildings in a dark color, which make them look automatically smaller. It's a device. And then you do the other buildings in white and stark with no faces. Naturally they look bad together, don't they? We thought so. Anyway, we think that that creates more disparity than needed. Renderings. The rendering prepared by the SVB group, Save Vanderbilt Beach, was discussed earlier in our presentation and rebuttal, but I reference it here again as yet another example of misleading the viewer. Not only are the rendered towers depicted two stories taller than the proposed 16-story project, which I think they've acknowledged, but the ground plane and amenity parking podium are rendered as devoid of any landscaping or detail. Sure, it would look too good. It would look like our renderings. It would look like the project. I can certainly appreciate that these types of errors and omissions create a certain feeling in the viewer; most of it negative. Projects of such importance need to be depicted accurately so they inform the viewer, not form their opinion. One of the other host of horribles is that we were threatening the commercial, and so we've been given -- I think recently in your packet from Save Vanderbilt Beach was an example of how the corner of Gulf Shore Boulevard and Vanderbilt Beach Road should be handled in a commercial setting; how you could step up to get to the floodplain. Let me talk about that a little bit. Although Save Vanderbilt Beach and Planning and Zoning staff have believed that commercial uses be placed at the intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Gulf Shore, the development team believes strongly in creating public art and a quiet zone at this location. We talked about that a little bit earlier. The pedestrian and vehicular congestion at this important corner does not need and, in fact, would be endangered by increased commercial activity at this important corner. In reality, the future planned tenants, William Raveis Real Estate and the coffee shop and sundry store, have agreements with the developer to be located at the close by intersection of Gulf Shore Drive and South Bay Drive. This is so that they can provide access to parking within the garage, all concealed, and the existing surface parking that's right on South Bay Drive. It's more convenient for people to arrive -- not everybody arrives by feet. People arrive at a real estate office because they want to go see real estate in Vanderbilt Beach. Williams Raveis is going to show them. Where do they park? Do they park somewhere and then go try to find the real estate office somewhere on the corner? We've moved the commercial to this corner. We feel it's more important. Well, we can appreciate the very urban design shown in this centerpiece suggested by Save Vanderbilt Beach in the right context, but this is not a hotel use, in spite of their Fontainebleau delusions. It is an -- it's an inappropriate model. Also, the suggested design is completely impractical given the strict construction standards of the FDEP and the CCCL zone whereby frangible or breakaway details are required. Furthermore, the parking garage contains the required amount of parking for the One Naples project and would be severely hampered by the intrusive gouge suggested by the example provided by SVB. It simply doesn't work. I'll make this the last one. Almost there. So the Save Vanderbilt Beach 30-foot-setback argument is also misleading. We have a few bullet points up here. You can read them. I'm going to read this paragraph to you. Once again, Save Vanderbilt Beach is misleading this Planning Commission and their client by incorrectly depicting the One Naples request for a 15-foot setback to our two-story garage. As you can see there, not this, which is the example on the bottom left -- I didn't put in the "not this" -- graphic incorrectly depicts a 45-foot-high wall at the setback when we have a 30-foot wall, densely landscaped and buffered and topped with a decorative glass railing to a maximum of 5.A.a Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 100 of 126 35 feet. They have also depicted the setback condition as devoid of any landscaping except for the One Naples version -- excuse me. Lost my place. They have also depicted the setback condition devoid of any landscaping for the One Naples version while also being completely out of scale. We believe the scale is wrong. And with only minimal landscaping -- and with only minimal landscaping. The county street section used in their comparison also shows a 25-foot parking garage while we have demonstrated the need for a minimum of 30 feet in our previous explanation and the request for Deviation 1. I'm very close to being done. You'll probably be glad. What should you take away from this presentation on the architecture at One Naples is simply two thoughts: Complementary design and responsible development can dramatically enhance and reconnect this community despite misleading and opposing viewpoints; two, creating a vibrant sense of place, beautifully landscaping and connecting its street fabric while finally correcting its disparate zoning and traffic woes completes the neighborhood of Vanderbilt Beach. In fact, in our view, they save it. And I thank you. Do you have questions? We're going to give it over to Bob, and you can ask them later. MR. MULHERE: I can tell by looking at you that you're all kind of tired, so... COMMISSIONER FRY: Not at all. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: No. You can tell? MR. MULHERE: So Rich has told me that my 15-minute presentation has just been knocked down to eight and speak fast. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Oh, no. Don't speak fast. Terri doesn't like speaking fast. MR. MULHERE: So I thought I'd try to liven things up a little. Thank you. Thank you very much. So for the record, Bob Mulhere. I was going to give you some qualifications, but I'm going to skip that part since most of you know me. It's really on behalf of the newer members of the Planning Commission. I'll get right into the presentation. I'll try not to be repetitive. I'm here to rebut some of the planning testimony that was put on the record. Mr. Stuart provided an opinion that the proposed project was neither compatible nor complementary with the surrounding neighborhood. Bob gave you a definition. I'll give you a Webster's couple of definitions. Complementary is defined by Webster's online as going together well or working well together. It's pretty simple. Compatible is defined by Webster's as capable of existing together in harmony; able to exist together without trouble or conflict. So I only provide those because that's laymen's terms; however, we really need to look at the LDC definition of compatibility, because that is what we are guided by. There is a definition in the LDC. It says, a condition -- we've talked about it a few times. A condition in which land uses or conditions can coexist in relative proximity -- relative proximity to each other in a stable fashion over time such that no use or condition is unduly negatively impacting, directly or indirectly -- impacted directly or indirectly by another condition or use. Complementary's not defined in the LDC. So it's true, Policy 5.6 in the Future Land Use Element of the county says, new developments shall be compatible with and complementary to the surrounding land uses. LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5, which deals with the Planning Commission's responsibility in reviewing these types of petitions, says that the Planning Commission shall make written findings at an advertised public hearing and that -- that can either make a recommendation for approval, approval with conditions or modifications, or denial, and then it lists a bunch of criteria. One of those criteria is Subsection D, which says the internal and external compatibility 5.A.a Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 101 of 126 of proposed uses which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. So the key point there is, yes, you are guided by the Comp Plan and by the LDC. By the way, the LDC is what implements the Comp Plan. The Comp Plan is very general. Think of the constitution of the United States and then the laws that enforce that constitution. The laws that enforce and further the Comp Plan is the LDC in this case. So remember the term "relative proximity." It's my professional opinion that relative proximity is not a mile away. It's not two miles away. It's within a reasonable distance of the subject site. What we've looked at is one-third mile. It's about 1,700 linear feet or a circumference of about 1,700 feet. And you can see a mixture, as we've said, of different heights of buildings within that circumference. Now, some of those buildings in that circumference happen to be across a two-lane roadway. Should we exclude them from the compatibility review? Gee, that's not what it said in the LDC. It didn't say you should exclude something that's across a two-lane street because in someone's opinion that's not part of the neighborhood. Compatibility deals with what's around the project. And maybe you can make an argument if this was a six-lane arterial roadway, not a two-lane roadway. You know, these examples I'm going to show you -- I'll go real quick. There are lots of examples throughout Collier County and throughout Southwest Florida -- I've limited these to Collier County -- where you have mid-rise buildings and low-rise buildings in proximity to high-rise buildings. They happen to be some of the highest value real estate in Southwest Florida. So they seem to be pretty compatible and function pretty well together. These are just some examples. In this particular example, I want to point out in the lower -- the lower left corner of that that there are fee-simple condominiums located directly -- or adjacent to the high-rise that's there. And those are low rise. These are probably 30, 40 feet tall. You can see there's individual swimming pools on those. So, again, here's another example. Fairly low-rise buildings in high -- in close proximity to high-rise buildings and mid-rise. So I want to go a little faster. So when we looked at -- I just want to reiterate or point out, again, that the Barefoot Pelican, which is right here, is four foot from the property line. That building is developed four feet from the property line. When we met with them, they wanted us to set back an appropriate distance, and we pushed it back to 50 percent of the zoned height. So our building is meeting the requirement. Their building's four foot from the property line. Now, it exists, and that's the way it is, but I just want to make that point. So I wanted to just briefly talk about the architectural standards. Collier County adopted a set of architectural and site design standards about 20 years ago. There were a couple of buildings that were built. People went crazy. One was the Toys R Us on Airport Road. Anyway, they -- and I think the other one -- I forget what the other one was, but a couple of commercial buildings. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sports Authority. MR. MULHERE: Sports Authority. And they developed these award-winning architectural and site design standards. They're not just architectural standards. They're also site design standards. And they've applied those, and those apply to this development. That's why we had to ask for a deviation to go from a transitional element that was slightly higher than 30 feet, which was the maximum, for the railing that Bob explained. But I want to read to you what the LDC says in terms of the architectural standards. The purpose and intent of these standards is to supplement existing development criteria in order to complement, enhance -- complement, enhance, and enrich the urban fabric of Collier County within an abundant variety of architecture. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 102 of 126 The development of a positive, progressive, and attractive community image and the sense of place is vital to the economic health and vitality of Collier County. So the point being that the staff reviewed this project juxtaposed against the architectural and site development standards and found it to be consistent with those and, in fact, pointed out that in order to do the extra five feet on the transition element being the parking garage, that we would need a deviation. As Bob pointed out -- Bob Hall pointed out, great care has been given to designing the project and locating the project. You know, you use numbers, and you think 25 feet, but really only one point of those buildings is 25 feet. The rest is considerably more set back from those roads, and it's mitigated by a kind of landscaping, the design of which we have not seen before. And I probably -- I believe I used the term "blighted" when I was preparing my justification and supplemental information which I amended a few times. Contrary to what was put on the record, I don't see anywhere in here where I ever said -- and I can't swear I didn't say it on the record in the last 16 hours of meetings, but I don't think I did, where I ever said that, you know, the whole issue here, is this going to improve property values? What I did say was that it would increase the tax rate in Collier County. Anyway, there's a substantial analysis here of the -- not only the statutory provisions but the county's provision in every piece of information that we provided such as the traffic impact analysis and environmental analysis, a public facilities impact analysis. All of those are part of the data and analysis that the statute says we may provide. It doesn't require a needs analysis, a residential needs analysis, and I don't think you need to provide a residential needs analysis to know that there's a market for these units across the street from the beach. So that concludes my rebuttal, and I think the next person -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Can we ask a question? MR. MULHERE: Sure. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRY: Bob, setbacks have been brought up a lot, and you mentioned setbacks. One of the standards was 25 feet or 50 percent of the building height. MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: To what extent are those relevant or irrelevant here? You have a point that's 25 feet but a building that's 208 feet high. MR. MULHERE: That's a good question. When I made that reference, I was referring to the mid-rise buildings, so not to the high-rise building, and so I'm not sure -- COMMISSIONER FRY: My question is, to what extent is -- I mean, some of the proposals -- the alternate proposals are that the building heights be -- the setbacks be 25 feet or 50 percent of the building height, whichever is greater. What is the relevance or irrelevance of that? MR. MULHERE: Right, I heard that. And I think it's irrelevant, and I tell you why. What they're referencing is the C-3 standards, okay. And C-3 requires a 25-foot minimum setback or 50 percent of the building height. We're not talking about C-3 here. We're talking about changing this from a predominantly commercial C-3 zoning to a predominantly residential mixed -- limited mixed-use development, you know, 10,000 square feet, and that was based on people asking for that. So the treatment is completely different for the two. Now, you do have to, I think, mitigate the building height, which I believe we've done. That building is not just, you know, in every location straight up to 208 feet. The parking deck is set back 15 feet with a super-enhanced buffer, and then the tower is only 25 feet in a couple of locations, both towers. And so -- and there's a nice separation between the two for light and air, which is important. And so, you know, as the tower curves around, that setback's increased. That's been 5.A.a Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 103 of 126 placed on the site in the context of the site. So I don't think that's relevant. I don't think -- there's no way that you need to do 50 percent of the building height. It just -- it doesn't make any sense. So Jim Banks is coming up. And I know -- I was trying to get that done in less than 10 minutes. I don't know if I did. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think you did. COMMISSIONER FRY: Jim, do you feel like the cleanup hitter? MR. BANKS: Well, it's close to my bedtime. COMMISSIONER FRY: They're only hoping -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Mine, too. MR. BANKS: Good afternoon. For the record, Jim Banks. I appreciate this opportunity to provide additional testimony to the Planning Commission. I'm going to try and keep my testimony specific to the rebuttal to what you heard from Bill Oliver and Greg Stuart, but I do encourage you at any time that I'm speaking and you don't understand what I'm saying, please interrupt me and ask a question. And if I'm going on too long and you've heard enough, feel free to stop me as well. Okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Since you mentioned it. Stop it. MR. BANKS: Good, bedtime. COMMISSIONER FRY: It is late. MR. BANKS: Okay. So when we -- my initial presentation was that the One Naples land uses is predominantly a residential product. And it will generate predominantly residential trips. There's a small amount of commercial in there, but the 148 trips that we keep talking about is predominantly residential trips, and that traffic from the residential product will be consistent and more compatible with the traffic that's generated by the nearby residents, because that's residential traffic as well. Now -- and I said, if we developed a project with commercial land uses, which would be retail shops and restaurants, that is going to be -- that type of land use will generate commercial trips, and those trips will be attracted from areas east of U.S. 41. Now, I'm not saying that the people in Naples Park won't also patronize these restaurants and these retail shops. They will, but we know no business can survive by only marketing and serving people that live within a mile of their business. It just -- it's not feasible. It just wouldn't work. And so -- and then when you take a product like -- if it moves forward as commercial, you've all been to these places like Tin City and the shops on Venetian Bay where they cluster these restaurants and these specialty retail shops together, and they become an entertainment center, and that's what I envision going in at this location is you're going to create a Tin City type situation, or even down near the Naples Dock where you have some restaurants and those retail shops during season, how people will congregate in that area. You have dinner. You walk out on the dock. You come back. You go to the shops. So that's what I envision at this location. So -- and I guess what was a little bit frustrating to me was to hear Bill Oliver make a statement almost as if it was factual versus making it clear he was offering an opinion. And I suspect I've done that myself inadvertently. But what Mr. Oliver said was that the commercial at this location would serve the nearby residents or people already at the beach, and he said it almost like it's factual and not, oh, it's my opinion. Now, when I provide testimony to you, I always try to base it on information that's credible and historical data. Now, in this case, I refer to the Collier County Road Impact Fee Update Study that was updated in 2019. There are over 8,000 field interviews conducted at various type of commercial uses. There were a thousand at restaurants. And the average trip length that a restaurant generates is 3.2 miles. So what that means is, is that there's plenty of people that are driving further than 3.2 miles, about half, and then there's a lot that are driving between one and three miles, and then there's some folks that are driving less than a mile. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 104 of 126 Now, what Mr. Oliver said was, in a factual manner, this commercial is just going to serve the nearby residents, but yet we have evidence that proves that that statement cannot be relied upon. It's not even factual. It's not even -- it's not even correct. We know that because, again, we've all been to the Tin Cities and the shops at the Village and those type of locations, and we know that those parking lots and those people that are standing out there waiting to be seated did not all just come from the nearby neighborhoods. It's from areas outside of -- the shops at the Venetian Bay is one of the best examples. It's on the bay. They have the ambiance of the restaurants and the retail shops right on the bay, which would be similar to what we're doing, plus we have access to the beach, which the villages -- or the shops at Venetian Bay do not. So it's the ambiance of coming to these locations, and especially during the season, that you have the snowbirds and the tourists that literally congregate at those locations because of the entertainment value. So, again, I submit to you that the offhanded comment that all the traffic generated by the commercial would be within the Naples Park neighborhood or the nearby, you know, residents is just not supportable. It's not defendable. I spent a lot more time on that than I wanted to. Okay. As I testified to you before, the traffic study was prepared pursuant to your-all's criteria. Now, I've been doing this for 32 years, and I submit to you that your staff has never accepted a traffic study that was not sufficient, complete, and accurate. In my 32 years, they've never accepted a report that didn't meet that criteria. Now, Mr. Oliver said, well, it's a Comp Plan amendment, and they should have done a 20-year analysis. I have a copy of a traffic study that Mr. Oliver did for a Comp Plan amendment project that is two-and-a-half times more intense than what we're proposing, and he did not do a 20-year analysis, and he never mentioned the Long Range Transportation Plan. So he came up here before you and said, this is what should have been done when he, himself, doesn't even do it. I know Rich is running a stopwatch on me, so I get a little nervous when he's walking around behind me. He's going to give me the hook. COMMISSIONER SHEA: He's watching us. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Now, this is one, I think, that was of interest to the Planning Commission. We have currently, on Vanderbilt Beach Road between Gulf Shore Drive and South Bay Drive, there are four full access points on Vanderbilt Beach Road. We're going to eliminate the two that are closest to the Gulf Shore/Vanderbilt Beach Road intersection as part of this project, and then we're going to take Gulf Shore Court, and we're going to realign it with the parking structure. And in addition to that access, we also have access to Gulf Shore Drive by South Bay Drive as well as another point of access to Vanderbilt Beach Road by South Bay Drive to the east. Now, by eliminating two of the access points and then realigning the South Bay Court, we effectively have gone from four full access points to one access point. I submit to you that this is basic access-management policy. This is what we try to do and your staff always tries to do is where can we combine these access points or create shared access to minimize the number of access points on a thoroughfare, and that is what we're accomplishing by -- and we're taking what is considered -- it's not considered. It's factual. The intersection of Gulf Shore Court and the beach access to the garage structure are low-speed, low-volume intersections that are offset about 220 feet, and we're going to combine them, and we're going to create a separation of one access that's over 400 feet from Gulf Shore Drive. That is a desirable result of this project. We presented it to your staff. We presented it to Jacobs Engineering. They agreed with that design, and they found that the preferable. Now, Mr. Oliver got up here and in excruciating detail explained to you how a four-way 5.A.a Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 105 of 126 intersection functions, and then used that as the justification of why it shouldn't be approved. I mean, that's like me telling you how your car runs on gas but you shouldn't use it because it's a flammable substance. I mean, it's just not logical what he's telling you. These intersections, these four-way intersections -- go down to Third Street, go down to Fifth Avenue. They're everywhere. We drive through them every day. And Third Avenue and Fifth Avenue, you have high volumes of pedestrian traffic in those intersections, and they're four-way, but yet somehow we seem to be able to navigate through these intersections there. But at this location it's his thought that it won't work at this location. It's just not true. And, again, I submit to you that your staff reviewed this, Jacobs Engineering reviewed it, and they agreed that that point of access to be aligned with the parking structure is the preferred design. Mr. Oliver concluded his testimony with a suggestion that we should be considering a roundabout at the intersection at South Bay and Vanderbilt Beach Road. And I'm just going to leave it on this, because this has got the aerial. So the intersection at South Bay Drive, that's the one that's to the far right of your exhibit you're looking at. That also lines up with the Ritz. We actually investigated the possibility of doing a roundabout there, we also looked at the one at the -- possibly at the parking structure, and we also looked at one at Vanderbilt and Gulf Shore. When we met with staff, they said, and we told them, nothing's on the table. We'll look at everything, and they said, yes, we want you to consider pedestrian signal crossings, we want you to look at roundabouts, traffic signals. We want the -- everything that we can possibly do to be considered. So we actually -- we went as far as laying that intersection out with the roundabout in order to just determine how much right-of-way was going to be needed, because we wanted to go back to staff and report to them, this is how much right-of-way the county would have to acquire for us to build a roundabout there. So we kind of got down that road a little ways on that design, and then when we collected the data and then when I made the field visits in both January and February, numerous days down there, it was evident that a roundabout won't work at that location, because what happens is when the parking structure is at its maximum capacity, they close it for 30 minutes or until 30 spaces come open. So what happens is motorists will start stacking up in that left-turn lane to go into the parking structure, but then they just continue to keep stacking and stacking and stacking, and they go right through the intersection at South Bay, and at times they would stack up all the way up to Vanderbilt Drive. They would sit in the left turn to go to the other development, and they would just extend along through there. And so what was evident to us was you can't have a roundabout and have vehicles queued up, because a roundabout works because people are circuiting through it. And the minute the queue backs into the roundabout, it comes to -- traffic won't flow through it, and it's just going to result in gridlock. So we took that information back to staff and presented to staff the evidence that we had, and they came to the same conclusion we did. COMMISSIONER FRY: Jim, so even with the improvement of the automated occupancy signs and all that, you still would expect traffic sometimes to back up past that intersection? MR. BANKS: Yes. And what I told you in my original testimony is we're making these improvements to make things better. I can't cure the situation when the parking structure is at its max capacity and the attendants close it. I can't cure that situation. I can make it much better up until the point that they close it, but there is no cure for when they do close it. Now, we do think some of the other features we're going to provide, like advance notices and that type of thing and plus the don't stop them when they pull in. Let them pull in. And they could literally circuit back and come back out if they don't -- if they're not staying there. They 5.A.a Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 106 of 126 could actually use the parking structure to actually head back east if they wanted to, which they can't now. They have to make this circuitous route to get back out of that area. So -- I lost my train of thought on that, so I'm just going to have to go on. COMMISSIONER FRY: You were talking about the roundabout. MR. BANKS: Yeah. Well, what I was saying is, is that -- yeah, that we can't cure it when they do close it and that queue would -- every time they do it, it is going to queue up past that intersection, and the roundabout won't work. And, again, we provided this evidence to the staff. I mean, I thought it was something that we -- I really wanted to investigate it to determine if it would work because I thought it would be helpful. But when that evidence showed that the queuing extends through that intersection, it just -- and I don't want to prolong my testimony or anything. I can explain to you why it works as a four-way and not as a roundabout if you want to hear it. I'll let you ask me that question if you think it's necessary. It works better as a four-way versus a roundabout, I should say. The roundabout won't work at all. And then I do want to just conclude my testimony and remind you that, as I explained to you-all before, when I took this project on and Stock Development said, we need to come up with some transportation improvements that will make the situation better. Even if we're not obligated to do it, I need you to go down there and figure out some things we could do. And staff told me the same thing: We need to come up with some ideas, get creative. And what I did is I took this project on, and I prepared a fact-based traffic study based upon real data with the primary objective of determining what transportation improvements could be implemented down there that would be a benefit to the public. Now, both county staff -- both the county staff and Jacobs Engineering agreed with our reports, findings, and our recommendations. And Jacobs even went even further. Not only did they review the report, we actually provided them all the data we collected in the field and all the input information into the model. They even went the step further of rerunning the model to validate what we found. And if you recall the video where we showed the vehicles queued up along Vanderbilt Beach Road all the way back to Vanderbilt Beach Drive, and it was because of the volume of pedestrians crossing at Gulf Shore and Vanderbilt Beach Road that was causing the delay, and then when we put the traffic signal in in order to process the pedestrians and then stop the pedestrians and then process the traffic and just redo that cycle, how much better the traffic was -- traffic flow was, it decreased the queue and the delay on Vanderbilt Beach Road by 76 percent. That's a huge improvement. And it reduced the queue and the delay on Gulf Shore Drive by 66 percent. And so, again, we presented -- and in addition to that, we also looked at doing the improvements to the parking structure, pay as you leave or pay after you park. We're also looking at doing the pedestrian, the bicycle augmentation along Vanderbilt Beach Road as well as the construction of sidewalks and bike lanes along South Bay. So that concludes my testimony, and I'm happy to answer questions. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: My main question, Jim, and maybe it's -- Mr. Yovanovich will answer. I need to set a trigger point. If, in fact, we do -- if this moves forward for these improvements to take place, at what trigger point? It won't be at 100 percent occupancy. I need to find out, have you guys talked about this? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, I'll answer that in a second, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But there has to be some point where all those improvements are completed prior to a certain point, 25 percent occupancy or some other point. I don't know what -- what you agree to. MR. YOVANOVICH: I will tell you. You know, I must -- it's past my bedtime as well. So we're all clear, we've announced that. We were willing to do this before we got our first 5.A.a Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 107 of 126 residential CO. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, that's awesome. MR. YOVANOVICH: So we were going to be out front and, you know, put all that up front which, believe me, I know you're probably surprised, we usually would like to get a certain amount of money coming in from sales before we'll lay out those expenses up front. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: This project, if it moves forward, will certainly, especially during the construction phase will have an impact, but these traffic improvements are woefully needed, and it needs to be done before, and I think that before any -- before the first CO, that's an acceptable proposal. MR. YOVANOVICH: I would hope that that would be -- you could talk me out of it. I mean, I'm happy -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No, that's all right. I'm good with that one. COMMISSIONER FRY: Very quick question. Would there still be a right turn on red at that light to go north on Vanderbilt -- or, I'm sorry, on Gulf Shore Drive? MR. BANKS: Yeah, we're going to stop traffic from turning right, because when we have that pedestrian phase, we have to stop all traffic so the pedestrians can cross, and then we're going to have -- I talked to Tony Khawaja, and we're going to have the right turns and southbound lefts run at the same time and then -- but we will have the separate and then -- which -- so, more specifically, no right turn on red. COMMISSIONER FRY: Gotcha. MR. BANKS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Mr. Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. I'll just piggyback on what Commissioner Schmitt said, and this is for you, Rich, that -- so that's your plan, but is that going to be required? MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, it will be in the PUD as a development commitment, Mr. Klucik. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It will be required. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay, great. That's what I just want to make sure. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. I know you're new, but we codify all of those commitments in the development commitment section of the PUD ordinance. Anything else for Mr. Banks? (No response.) MR. YOVANOVICH: So they went more than the nine minutes I had allocated them, so I will hopefully -- I will move mine along, because I think that we did -- we did a good job. But I just wanted to go back to where we started, which is you have two petitions in front of you. One's the Growth Management Plan amendment, and I don't disagree with Mr. Brookes; it's a legislative decision, and you're here to decide what's the best use of this piece of property under the Comprehensive Plan. And that's -- and we believe that we've presented the required data and analysis for your staff to agree that the best use of this property from a Growth Management Plan standpoint is the mixed-use residential project that we're discussing. Your staff recommended approval of the Growth Management Plan amendment. I don't think the residents can cherry-pick which staff they think is competent and which staff they think is not competent. Your staff is recommending approval of the legislative decision to convert this property to the subdistrict we're requesting, which I will, again, reiterate is what your Growth Management Plan originally intended in 1989, that this would be a residential piece of property. It would not be a commercial piece of property. And, in fact, it's more -- it probably was a residential tourist piece of property considering everything else that's around it is residential tourist. And as you all -- most of you know, some of 5.A.a Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 108 of 126 you may not know, the residential tourist zoning district in 1989 would have allowed 100-foot-tall zoned buildings together with 26 hotel units per acre and 16 residential units per acre combined. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Combined. MR. YOVANOVICH: You could have put -- so, effectively, 42 units per acre under the RT. If you can meet the parking requirements and the other development standard requirements, you could have had a far more intense project for what's around that immediate vicinity. The rezone is a quasi-judicial. I don't disagree with Mr. Brookes when he told you that the law says you provide competent substantial evidence, and then the burden shifts to the county to keep things the way they are. I believe we've met the burden of competent substantial evidence through Mr. Mulhere, through Bob Hall, through Mr. Banks, and the other experts that we have. And, in fact, your Transportation staff recommended approval without conditions, your Environmental staff recommended approval, your Utilities staff recommended approval. It was only your Zoning staff that recommended approval with certain conditions. I think, unless there's a change from the last hearing, your Planning staff said that the setback can be reduced along Vanderbilt Beach Road and Gulf Shore Drive as long as we activated the street by having the commercial that we agreed to provide. It had to have access from the street. It didn't have to be actually at the street level, and staff was saying they were fine with the setbacks. They have a difference in opinion as to the height that can be allowed based upon that reduced setback. But I do believe staff is in agreement at this point that the setback can be reduced for those buildings as long as we activate commercial from the street. COMMISSIONER FRY: Question. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRY: So I was looking at the GMPA, and it says up to 172 multifamily dwelling units. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: Based -- now that's based on 200-foot high. It's based on the building height and the number of units you can fit into that number of stories. So by them offering a condition of a reduced building height -- I think it was 125 feet -- is 172 still -- MR. YOVANOVICH: There's a difference -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Is it still possible to do 172 and approve that or -- that condition? MR. YOVANOVICH: Your Comprehensive Planning staff didn't look at building height. They looked at the 172 -- the density. COMMISSIONER FRY: Just purely the density. MR. YOVANOVICH: They looked at the density and residential use on that property and would leave the implementation of that through the PD -- or PUD. I was in Naples yesterday. In Naples it's a PD. COMMISSIONER FRY: They didn't care if it was five-story buildings or 30-story buildings? MR. YOVANOVICH: They were looking at -- and then -- correct. I don't think Comprehensive Planning staff determined that the 208-foot actual height building was part of their analysis. They may have because they had them both together, so they understood the compatibility argument. But there's been -- and also your Zoning staff. Mr. Sabo said at the last hearing that he didn't care about the hundred and -- the density was not an issue. For him it was build smaller units, effectively. Just -- and so bring the building height, build smaller units. He's fine with the 172 units from a density standpoint. He just -- he had a difference of opinion on the development standards. We talked about this. You really do only have two options, because I only have two options available to me, is if I want to do a residential project of the character that Stock 5.A.a Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 109 of 126 Development wants to do on this property, I have to amend the Growth Management Plan. And if we lose, I'm stuck with what's there today, which is the zoning of C-3. It remains C-3, and that's what I'm -- we're allowed to develop on the property. We provided the data -- Ray, it's really hard. Sorry. So those are our options under the current Growth Management Plan. I either amend it to go to the residential option we're talking about, or we live with the C-3 zoning, and those really are the only two options that we have for the development of the site. I know it will surprise you, but when we first started talking with the residents and the neighbors, their number one issue -- I'm not saying they weren't concerned about building heights and setbacks, but -- was traffic, traffic, traffic. And we keep hearing traffic is a bad thing in this area. Not one person said they think that traffic is good. Now, I don't truly believe that the residents want us to build the C-3 project with the traffic that goes along with that. I think they're betting that if we lose, we won't build the C-3 development, and they'll live to fight another day. We've had these discussions on other projects. Mr. Fry, you remember Allura. We had a zoning option. We came through with a small-scale -- we came through with a Comp Plan amendment for Allura, if you remember, to get a little bit more density to do, you know, an apartment complex. The other option was to just build the two existing zoning -- zoning developments, which would have been, in the County Commission's opinion, worse than what's there today. We could show you the plan that we have that shows we can not relocate any of the right-of-way, build the right parking that we need for the 100,000 square feet that Mr. Banks -- I'm sorry -- Mr. Hall told you about. It would be 27,500 square feet of restaurant space in five separate restaurants, two of them right on the water, and two of them in the other -- and three of them in the other buildings, and they would be, I'm sure, spectacularly popular restaurants. And this would -- it would be what I don't think the residents really want is an attractor. Chris's kids would go. My kids would go. Your kids would go. They wouldn't tell us they're going, but they would go. COMMISSIONER VERNON: If we were there with them. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. They probably would take us so we'd pay, and we'd probably want to go, too, because I do think that it would -- the beach right there is going to be an attractor, and Mr. Banks is absolutely right that people are going to drive there from not around the surrounding area. There will be people from the surrounding area that will go there as well, but it will be an attractor, and it will be what the residents don't want; more traffic in the area. Our proposed project is, in fact, compatible and complementary. Nobody wants to talk about or acknowledge that the Barefoot Pelican's at almost 46 units per acre, that Vanderbilt Palms is almost at 53 units per acre. We are asking you for 31.7, almost 32 units per acre. We've had the discussion about the GMP only allows this commercial to exist because it was deemed compatible by policy. It was not supposed to be commercial. But since commercial was already there, it was allowed to continue that. Your Growth Management Plan wants us to be a residential project. It has incentives to convert it to a residential project. Unfortunately, the incentives that are there today are not enough to convert this to a residential project. It's an odd-shaped piece of property. It's not a perfect piece of property, so we have put -- we have asked for some setbacks that we've offset with additional landscaping to make it compatible and work with the community. There were -- if you all will recall when Arthrex was coming through, people were complaining about the height of the Arthrex building because it was taller than what was around in the community. And that turned out, I think, to be a phenomenal architectural building and a 5.A.a Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 110 of 126 phenomenal development. There's no question that Stock will rise to that occasion and that standard. We are doing improvements to the transportation, as Jim went through. We're paying a lot of money to do that, and we're willing to do that up front as a commitment. We're increasing the tax value. I was the one who talked about value. I find it hard to believe, and I think it defies logic, that putting in million-dollar-plus units and reducing traffic in the area is not going to improve property values in the area. I just think it defies logic to say it would somehow diminish the value. And the people who live in Trieste are still going to see the Gulf of Mexico. The people who live in Regatta are still going to have their views of the water. It will be a slightly different view, but they'll still have their views. And the people that live in Barefoot Pelican, their view is to the north on the water and to the east on the water. But they'll tell you that they sit out on their balcony to look at the sun, which they won't be able to see if we build under the C-3. And, finally, and I think, most importantly, is you've got Stock Development backing this project, and they are a known entity. You know they're going to do a quality project. Brian's invested in this community. He's been here 20-plus years. He's not going anywhere, contrary to what one of the speakers said that, you know, we only have 50-percent-occupied projects. You know stock. Stock's going to do the right thing. It's going to be a great project, and we hope you will recommend approval of the project to the Board of County Commissioners as we've proposed it. And, again, we thank you for your time and your patience, and we're available to answer any questions you may have regarding the specifics of the project, and hopefully we addressed most of them in our closing and rebuttal. With that, we're all ears, as Ross Perot would say. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Do you have any questions? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Looking for questions? No questions. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have questions just of staff. I already warned James. And, Rich, you may stick around because you may have to address this. But staff's recommendation on the PUD zoning -- or correction -- on the zoning, not the PUD. Long night -- long day. But the -- yeah, the PUD zoning, and it's the recommendations, maximum height for all tracts, 76 feet zoned except for Tract 1 can be increased to 125 feet zoned height if step-back architecture is used for the upper floors of the building. As proposed now, does that meet -- that statement meet the requirements of the petitioner? That's what he's -- that's what's shown here. MR. YOVANOVICH: We cannot live with the heights that your staff is recommending, nor can we live with the setback limitations on the mid-rises that your staff is recommending. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So the two statements where maximum building height and the minimum building setbacks, those two statements in the recommendation you do not agree with? MR. YOVANOVICH: We do not agree with those. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You're at 182 zoned height and then the setbacks as presented by Bob Hall in his -- MR. YOVANOVICH: That's on -- don't -- we spent a whole lot of time talking about the towers, but the mid-rise we also have setbacks -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Setbacks well. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- and height for those. And if you'll notice in the setback table, essentially, we've only asked for the mid-rises to be 55 feet versus the 50 feet that's today, and that was because of floor elevations for higher 5.A.a Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 111 of 126 ceilings for residential. So we're asking for, basically, five extra feet on the zoned height. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Then it says, for the PUD deviation section, the Site Plan with deviation. The language appears to be redundant because the LDC allows it. And it appears that the applicant is creating a hybrid process for administrative deviations that apply to new structures by utilizing the DR process, deviation process. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm being told by Mr. Mulhere we can delete that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You can delete that. The developer commit -- 2B1 shall include the right-turn lane for northbound Gulf Shore Drive; Commitment 2BI [sic] can be found at the bottom of Page 9. So that -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We are doing the right-turn lane. It's part of the improvements that we said we would do. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Update and revise the master concept plan and Exhibit G, perimeter buffers to reflect the compensating right-of-way for the turn lane and the impact on the required landscaping buffer. MR. YOVANOVICH: Staff recognized that we do not need to provide compensating right-of-way, and I think we're in agreement on that. MR. SABO: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And a Type B buffer is required along the northern waterfront boundary adjacent to Vanderbilt Lagoon for the areas not developed with buildings or structures. This will be reviewed and required at time of Site Development Plan. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, we've agreed to that, too. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: If Deviation 3 is used, the place-making elements are required. I'm not sure what that was. What is that, James? MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know either. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Are we saying that Deviation 3 is not -- we're not going to need that? MR. SABO: No, we're not saying that. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Oh, okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: James, come on in. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: They're requesting the deviation because of the elements that they're providing. So this says that they could always elect not to do -- use the deviation. So this says if the deviation's not required, then -- I mean, that they are required in order to have that deviation. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I guess my confusion is, I heard a question about Deviation 3 -- and I'm on Page 522. Is that where we're at? We're at the staff recommendation? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: 521 and then 522 says -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Item 3. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- all -- staff was recommending approval of all three deviations. I won't go into the deviations -- MR. SABO: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- but they were recommending approval. MR. SABO: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The applicant had no problem with the deviations, because they were requested. But then it says, if Deviation 3 is used, the place-making elements are required. What -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So let me clarify my question, because I don't think I spoke clearly. So I'm looking at No. 3 on Page 522, and I was -- I was assuming that was Deviation 3. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. Deviation 3 up above. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right, okay. So No. 3, the compensating right-of-way, the 5.A.a Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 112 of 126 staff and the applicant both agree that Item 3 on Page 522 is not needed? MR. SABO: Correct. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But could you go back to 522. We're talking about Deviation 3, the buffer type, and then he addresses it down in the recommendation, and I'm not sure what is meant by the place-making elements are required. Is that the architectural? MR. YOVANOVICH: I hope I have the right area. That's -- the buffer would normally wrap around. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yep, that's the -- got it. MR. YOVANOVICH: And since we're asking for that gap, we have to have those improvements. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Improves the element of place. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. That's all the questions I have, then. Thank you. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And -- I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: As to what we're really -- I think the nitty-gritty here is Page 527, and that is -- I'm looking at Exhibit B of the zoning ordinance, which is 527 in our packet. So the issue is whether or not we're leaving that as-is or we're modifying it? MR. YOVANOVICH: You're talking about Exhibit B, which is the development standards, Mr. Klucik? (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. And what's in there is the applicant's proposal, and it doesn't include the changes that were recommended by Mr. Sabo. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. What we're saying is we cannot agree to the changes that Mr. Sabo -- and we're asking you to approve our Development Standards Table. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Are you going to modify it, though, based on the exhibit for the towers that you had earlier? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, and we will -- we will -- we probably need to modify the master plan exhibit to show -- to tie it to the table. I have to put a footnote, Heidi, I would assume, that says these standards are also subject to the attached conceptual master plan. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, it might need some modifications on the development standard as to the towers where you've got -- on the northwestern tower you have a minimum of 35 feet, but then you have another maximum area of 100 feet. MR. YOVANOVICH: We will give you that exhibit and -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And we'll match that if we need to with the table. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, yes. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. Very good. COMMISSIONER FRY: Rich, I want to clarify -- oh, sorry. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: So the master -- it will be Exhibit G on the PUD? MR. YOVANOVICH: It may be -- it may become part of the master plan set. So it could be -- it could be part of Exhibit C, but we'll work with Heidi to put -- to incorporate the document we showed you with the setbacks on it. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: The one we saw today? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: So to clarify where we're at, it's looking like zero sum game. There is -- we have the staff who has submitted conditions with a pretty significantly reduced building height and some other changes. You have an alternate recommendation from the Save 5.A.a Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 113 of 126 Vanderbilt Beach folks, reduced building heights and densities and such. So if the Planning Commission decided that -- in favor of the staff's amended -- or their conditions of approval, that, in effect, is a rejection to you, what would the position of the applicant be if that happened to be the outcome of this conversation? MR. YOVANOVICH: Welcome to C-3 zoning. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: I mean, their conditions result in none of the buildings that we're proposing being able to be built. COMMISSIONER FRY: I think that's important to know going into -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Likewise, what was presented by Save Vanderbilt Beach results in none of the buildings that we're proposing being capable of being built, because Bob didn't get into all the details about how the garage actually has to be built and how cars need to circulate in it, but there are increased setbacks that they want for that. You can't have a parking garage. For their setback for the tower, I think they had it at -- I don't know what the exact number was. It doesn't fit on the podium. So it just -- it results in a project that the great -- it sounds great on paper, but it doesn't fit within the building envelope that we have as far as the property goes. COMMISSIONER FRY: So even though the -- even though they've approved -- staff has approved the GMP amendment with 172 units and are not -- you know, they're not questioning the density, you could not redistribute the units on that property at a lower height in a feasible way? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, sir. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah, just -- I kind of have a clarification. What we're doing here -- and this is my first controversial vote -- is that we're making a recommendation. So welcome to C-3 zoning, with all due respect, doesn't resonate that much with me, because you're going to the Board of County Commissioners, and they may disagree with us, or -- or, excuse me for interrupting -- or between now and the time we make a recommendation, there may be further discussions that may result in some modifications that you might make based on our recommendation that may lead to the Board of County Commissioners approving something that you can live with. MR. YOVANOVICH: So far I've been given two choices -- three choices. My Development Standards Table, staff's Development Standards Table, or Save Vanderbilt Beach's Development Standards Table. Those are the three things I think I was asked. What will happen if you recommend, you the Board, recommend from those two choices? You may come up with something different. I don't know because I haven't heard it, so I can't react to it. What I'm saying is, if I have -- those are my choices, I don't have a project. I have -- I have to go with C-3. So I hope that -- I hope that answers your question. COMMISSIONER VERNON: It does, but not necessarily coming out of this. But if the Board of County Commissioners gave you the Save Vanderbilt or gave you the staff, you're saying your client's not going to -- he's going to go with C-3 is what you're saying? MR. YOVANOVICH: I will withdraw my petitions, and I will live with the zoning I have. And, yes, we understand what -- we understand that C-3 is what we bought. We don't think it's in the best interest of the community, but those are my choices. I haven't heard a fourth option. Let me just -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Chairman, I recommend we close the public hearing and deliberate amongst us. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: This is -- the 16 floors, that is the height in this table, right? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. The 14 floors over two of parking is the height in that table. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Fourteen over two. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 114 of 126 MR. YOVANOVICH: So it is a combined 16, yes. And that's where you got the zoned height and you get the actual height is based upon those numbers. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Are we into discussion? COMMISSIONER VERNON: We need a second for what you just -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, no. If there's no other -- CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Do you have any other questions? (Simultaneous crosstalk.) (Interruption by the stenographer for clarification.) CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Stop. Stop. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I just asked if we've closed the public hearing and we are starting discussion. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. We'll close the public hearing. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SHEA: This has been -- I'm a little newer than you guys, or not a little newer; a little older. This has been -- in my 50 years in -- as a professional, I've never seen so many experts in one room at one time, and I can't imagine paying the bill for all these experts. But we've heard some very, very good presentations. And it's -- me, it's very difficult to -- how do you sort through what my responsibility is as a Planning Commissioner? Well, I view us as a steward of the Growth Management Plan. That's the number one role. I think the citizens depend on us to manage the growth in the county in accordance with the plan, or we should change the plan. And occasionally we do change the plan. We change the plan generally when there's an enhancement or an added benefit to the community. To me, how do you measure that? Well, we obviously have no agreement on how we measure it, whether it's comparable, compatibility, whatever. How I measure it is when I get thousands of people writing me notes saying that you shouldn't do it, they view that as not an enhancement to the plan. They're invested in the community, and they view that as not an enhancement. And, to me, I don't think it's our role to go into a community like that and tell them what's best for them. They've told us. They've told us they want to live with C-3. I can't support it as -- the options you gave, I would vote no on the Growth Management Plan as not being a benefit to the community; therefore, why should we change it? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: You know, also, every one of them complained about the traffic. The C-3 is the biggest generator of traffic. COMMISSIONER FRY: Which is why it's unfortunate we have a zero sum game here. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes, exactly. I agree. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'd like to -- I talked about the Growth Management Plan in the -- when we did the reevaluation. It was even before my time. I was on staff from 2002 to 2010. But just before I arrived, they went through the reevaluation. And, as I brought up previously, this is RT zoning. One of the elements that started the whole VBRTO was a project; it was a couple years ago. It was Moraya Bay, which is all the way down at the end of Vanderbilt Beach, and it was a major significant emotional event because of the size of the Moraya Bay, which is a very high-end development. The intent -- and I think Mr. Yovanovich brought this up, but the intent of this area, it probably, during the reevaluation, would have never stayed three -- C-3 except for the fact that there was commercial on the property. It would have been wrapped up in the RT zoning and been part of the VR -- Vanderbilt Beach Residential Tourist Over -- the VBRTO overlay, the Vanderbilt Beach Residential Tourism Overlay. So the fact that I -- again, I look at it that, as I said two meetings ago, be careful what you ask for, you may get it, because C -- commercial zoning in this area is not going to be well accepted because of the impact it's going to have. This is very valuable property. I have absolutely no idea what Stock paid for it, but I have 5.A.a Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 115 of 126 to believe because of the proximity of the beach, it was very costly. And any type of restaurant or other activity going in there is going to be a high end, and it's going to be an attractor. And I -- just, to me, it just fundamentally doesn't make sense to create an attractor in that part of the county on Vanderbilt Beach Road. So I have to -- so I support from the standpoint of the compatibility and reasonable development. I know James talked about the area, but I'm inclined to believe the circle that the applicant talked about, one-third of a mile, I have to take everything into consideration; the Regatta, the Trieste, the Ritz, the Remington. The Trieste which is 21 stories; the Regatta which is 12. It -- to me, this development -- and I'll talk about the development -- is certainly a significant enhancement to what exists there now. It is, I believe, compatible, and it's certainly a very responsible development. And with that, I would -- I'm ready to make a proposal, but I'm waiting to hear what the other commissioners want to discuss. So at least you have my viewpoint. But I think, from the standpoint I would -- I'm willing to make a proposal and throw it on the -- in the middle of the floor for consideration. That we approve the 14 stories over two stories parking. And if we want to look at a reduction, we can talk about a reduction. But I would say initially we support 14 stories over two stories. The staff has already approved the -- or recommended approval of the Comp Plan amendment, which is the easy part. The hard part of this is the rezone. So with that, I conclude my remarks. COMMISSIONER SHEA: We don't have to approve the Growth Management Plan just because the staff recommends it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No, we -- that's correct. We don't. COMMISSIONER SHEA: My proposal is we reject the -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. COMMISSIONER VERNON: We reject -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: The Growth Management Plan. We have to do them one at a time, or do we do them together? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, if you reject the Growth Management Plan, the other -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Exactly. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: They can't go forward with the -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: But we could bring some of the qualifications forward that Mr. Sabo proposed and put them into the Growth Management Plan and say, we approve if you bring these forward. But Rich has already said that's dead on arrival anyways. Right? MR. YOVANOVICH: Is it appropriate for me to -- CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: I don't see how -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: No. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: -- this is -- to me, I don't see how these -- this development is not compatible with the surrounding area. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I agree. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I agree. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: That's the first thing I looked at when we first got this packet. I got on Google Earth and started down the beach from -- all the way down Pelican Bay and started counting stories and went past this and counted more stories, because some of these buildings past this are older. They're going to be redeveloped at some time -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: They're going to be redeveloped. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: -- and they're not going to be that height, because they have to start at 21 feet. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 116 of 126 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Some day there's going to be -- they're going to -- the storm surge is going to take some of these places out someday. It just hasn't happened yet, but it's going to. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, as for -- I'm sorry. You wanted to speak. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Well -- no, that's fine. I was just going to address your two points. And I do want to hear from everybody before we throw something out there. But on the C-3, you know, I totally agree. I mean, I just don't see the C-3 as something we want. I do see residential. And where maybe I differ a little -- but my view has been since the beginning, I've listened to all the evidence, and it really hasn't changed. You know, my view is the neighborhood is -- starts at the corner of Vanderbilt and Gulf Shore and heads north, and there's a big association that sort of confirms that. They organically created an organization built on that, you know. And to use an analogy, I've got -- I live at the edge of a subdivision, and right behind me, literally 100 feet away, maybe 150 feet is some houses. I don't know who those people are, but I know my neighbors a quarter of a mile away. My point being, when I think of that neighborhood, I don't think of the Ritz-Carlton, I don't think of Pelican Bay. I think of the Turtle Club, I think of Buzz's, and I think right along that. Now that -- I don't know that that's dispositive, you know. It doesn't mean I'm going to reject the project, but it means that's the filter in which I'm looking through. And from my perspective, you take it into that, you look at Regatta, and I forgot the other one. COMMISSIONER FRY: Beachmoor. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Trieste. COMMISSIONER VERNON: No. Beachmoor and Regatta. You're talking about, like, 127 feet and 148 feet. So I don't want to reinvent the wheel, but I'm almost thinking 150-foot might be acceptable, and that's bigger than the objectors want. The -- what the objectors want, from my perspective, is a little unrealistic. I think we should give a lot of deference to the staff. I mean, it's what they do for a living, so I'm very differential to the them. I think absent the staff's recommendation, I would probably try to push it towards the towers being 150 feet. That may take care of some of the density. It may take care of some of the setback issues. So where I'm leaning is accepting the staff's proposal on the height or proposing something along the lines of 150 feet. So those -- I just wanted -- I want to get my thoughts out not only to you guys, but also if the Board of County Commissioners want to take a look at what we're thinking. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: All right. And -- are you done? COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. What I am most concerned about is, of course, the legal standard, that -- you know, that applies to our decision-making or in general, what does -- what are we obligated to consider? And so I would ask for -- regarding the zoning ordinance that we're proposing, when we have the staff recommendation for the changes so that it's not what the petitioner asked for, the legal standard is, if we're sitting quasi-judicially, is that we have to have a basis to say no to it, is that correct, if it's lawful, if it meets requirements? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Let me answer it in two parts and a little bit further expand upon your question. So I'm going to start with the Comp Plan. As to the Comp Plan, that's a legislative decision, a legislative recommendation. So you really just have to have a reasonable justification, okay. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 117 of 126 The zoning is a little bit different because it's based -- it's a quasi-judicial hearing, and it's based on substantial competent evidence. Substantial competent evidence is testimony of experts. You've heard a lot of them. You've heard the county expert, but you also heard Mr. Mulhere. You heard some other people that qualify as experts who appeared for some of the other property owners associations. And you can also consider observations that were testified as to fact by some of the other witnesses that testified. So you have to make your decision based on substantial competent evidence, which is all of those things that I mentioned. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Thank you. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Does that help? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: That does help. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And I guess what I would say after hearing all of the -- all of the sides, the petitioner as well as everybody who was opposed, and our staff, that I don't see a problem with the traffic; I don't see a problem with the property values; I don't see a problem with the streetscape as far as the landscaping; I don't think it's a wall. I think it actually will be pleasant; and I don't think it's -- yes, it's going to be different than what's there now, but I don't think it's going to be imposing in a negative way. I think it is -- they did a nice job, and I appreciate the explanation of showing that, yes, there is a point where it is 15 feet, but then it goes to -- or 25 feet, but then it really -- you know, I mean, I didn't really think about it that way, but that was a really good point. It really does go further away, and the setback becomes very much increased. And so the fact that it's that one tangent point, I don't -- I understand by definition that is 25 feet for the tower and 15 feet for the parking garage, but I also think that we can consider the fact that it then rapidly goes further away. Compatibility and complementary, I think, have been satisfied. I do think we can look, you know, within a third of a mile or 1,700 feet and see these uses that are similar, that are very tall, and we even have -- as we've already discussed, we have 148 feet and 127 feet adjacent to this building. And I agree that we're going to see more and more requests as these properties are redeveloped, and I don't see the justification for not allowing -- I think it's compatible. I don't see the justification for saying it's not compatible when the building right next to it or right near by, you know, has these features that people might object to. And I heard what Mr. Sabo had to say, and I think he -- you know, I think he explained himself and his viewpoint. He answered all our questions, but at the end of the day I see that we have to have more than the opinion of our expert, you know, the staff expert when we have other experts, you know, showing and explaining that there are other considerations and reasons that we can move forward. And I think that, you know, I'm inclined to go forward as-is, you know, as these two ordinances are written. COMMISSIONER FRY: May I? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: So I think -- I feel like we owe it to the applicant, to the public, and to the County Commission to explain our decision and why we made it, the grounds why we made it. So I'm going to just walk through briefly what I consider to be the major components of this decision and where I stand on them, just my -- personally my opinion. Compatibility, I think there's a lot of different ways you can look at compatibility. I absolutely agree that it's mostly residential, so residential use is compatible. I think you -- there is a question that is what range -- what directions, what do you consider the compatibility based on. And I find it compelling that Vanderbilt Beach is a neighborhood and 5.A.a Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 118 of 126 that Pelican Bay is a neighborhood, and that not only is Pelican Bay a neighborhood whose foundation has a written a letter expressing, I think, and detailed some data saying that it is much more than just high-rises. It is a land of high-rises. The high-rises are almost all right along the beach. I mean, they're the closest structures to the beach with one exception, which is Trieste. Trieste and Remington and the Ritz-Carlton are really within Bay Colony. Bay Colony is the most upscale part of Pelican Bay. You've got -- Vanderbilt Beach has its own association, and Pelican Bay Foundation says that we should not be considering Pelican Bay as compatibility. That's their opinion. I happen to concur with it, because I do think it's radically different. They're talking about all the other development standards, setbacks, buffers. They have common areas that they maintain. I believe -- in my compatibility, I believe it's much more reasonable to look at Vanderbilt Beach. Now, there are some tall buildings on Vanderbilt Beach. You have the Beachmoor and you have Regatta, which are immediately adjacent to it. So I can see compatibility with those, but I can't really -- myself, I can't justify looking into Pelican Bay, so I concur with the staff on that. In terms of intensity, you've got some high intensity, as Mr. Yovanovich pointed out. You've got the two condo buildings that are 40 and 50 units density per acre. So I'd have a hard time saying that this is too intense, because you've got buildings right next to it that are more intense. And I believe the intensity is -- in this case should be more driven by traffic, building heights, the other specs of compatibility, setbacks, you know, kind of what's possible in terms of what is the resulting intensity for meeting those other -- from balancing those other things. Complementary is a term that -- you know, it brings something to perfection. It adds benefit to the surrounding area. So I look at, really, who is benefiting from this. This is a beautiful development from a very high-quality developer. No question about that. This, in my opinion, is like a Bay Colony or a Pelican Bay high-rise that is being put into -- it's being proposed for Vanderbilt Beach. In my sense, that's -- for this building to dwarf the Beachmoor, which is right on the beach where you typically have the higher building, I didn't see any examples of photos where the buildings that were across the street from the beach dwarfed the buildings that were on the beach. And so I kind of have a struggle with the building height being higher than that. But complementary, I believe there should be -- this is the gateway to Vanderbilt Beach, and I believe that -- this is a beautiful project. And in that sense, I think you built a case that it's complementary. You know, it's aesthetically beautiful. But the benefit to the residents from this development, it's really benefiting 172 people that are paying multimillion-dollar price tags to be there. For the residents, they have a tiny footprint of commercial. It's the minimal commercial standard. So I think if I were to vote for approval of this, it would require more commercial to give more services and products, a different balance to the residents and to the neighbors. Building heights and setbacks. The Beachmoor, 125; Regatta, 148. I think you mentioned -- you mentioned 150. Somebody mentioned 150. You know, I could probably support a building height above the 125 that the staff has reported just to try to come up with a balance, because there's been a huge investment by this party to develop something nice. The development standards -- the architecture is incredible. The landscaping, the buffers, the bike paths, everything is an incredible project, which I think any of us would be proud of. I just think it's a little too much. I think it's -- I don't think it's compatible with Vanderbilt Beach in this area. And I want to point out the concept of precedent which we -- I pressed Mr. Klatzkow on. Where does precedent -- how is this -- does it -- how is it relevant or irrelevant to this process? And he said, there is no precedent. You do not -- you are not bound by what's next to it or what's here or what's there. It is totally a subjective decision by you as to how you evaluate this decision. But I would -- I would say that precedent is at work in every application that we evaluate. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 119 of 126 Compatibility is based on what is next to it, which was based on what was next to that, because every time we do a compatibility check, we are looking at what was approved by the Board two years ago, 10 years ago, 15 years ago, and what is there now. So if this gets approved, I believe there's no question that at 208 feet, the next building will point to this project and say, I need 230 feet. I need 250 feet. And it's compatible; it's residential. I get that. But I think it's a bit of a potential domino effect which I do have concern about. I love the project. I think even the neighbors have stipulated they don't mind the project. They like the residential nature of it. I completely agree with the C-3 being -- you know, be careful what you wish for; that it is -- it's not the best. Traffic is the main concern of people, but yet -- but yet this is a lesser -- a lesser use. So I'm in support of the project really very close to based on what the staff has approved, and I'm happy also with what the Save Vanderbilt Beach has approved in terms of a lessened version of this. If it's a zero sum game, which is why I asked that question, then I can't -- I can't vote yes for this at those building heights because I do believe it is not commensurate for the location. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, given the -- go ahead. COMMISSIONER SHEA: It's more a question for us. And I guess I really don't know how we can ignore the overwhelming protest. It feels like we're saying, we're from the government, and we know what's best for you. And, quite frankly, I guess I don't see that. Most of the projects we deal with, if there's one or two people, they're usually supporting it and not supporting it, and then we need to step in and make a decision on whether it's compatible, whether it's beneficial. But when you have hundreds and hundreds of people saying it's not compatible, it's -- it's a very subjective thing. So we're going to look at all this data and say, we think it is compatible and it will enhance your property value and it's a -- it's a good thing. I agree with you that the best use is exactly what you said, but that's not an option for us here. I just don't know how we can ignore the overwhelming public opposition to this. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Let me just comment. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Because it -- the reality is, this is not going to stay vacant. It just is not. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And unless somebody approaches the county commissioners and they buy the property as a -- to become a county park, which I would assume would -- that lot would probably be in the -- well above $25 million. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Water park. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So the reality of that is just not going to happen. But who knows. The folks can bring that to the County Commissioners. It will be developed as residential. The real issue here is, of course, the financial aspects of the development. What can I build there in order to create a greater turn. And I'm not going to get into the whole business of it, but somebody just doesn't go out there and build something and not make any money. That's why we were -- they get in the development business. Let me -- obviously, we've heard -- and I guess from indications, it looks like almost 3-3 here. Because if this were reduced to 12 stories over two stories parking, where would that get us? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Is that basically the staff? Oh, no, it isn't. Staff's lower, okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Instead of 14 stories to 12 stories over parking. So 12 and two; 16 [sic] stories total. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah, I tell you, that's kind of where -- there's where my head was coming into today, and I think I just got pushed -- from everything I heard today, I got 5.A.a Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 120 of 126 pushed a little lower, candidly. That's -- and some of it has to do with what Paul heard. And this is going to sound very jaded on my part, but I really -- I agree with you conceptually, but I think the world we live in now, you know, people -- these are two sophisticated groups here with -- you know, who know what -- you know, and oftentimes developers come in and ask for a lot more than they want, but also on the other side, the objectors say, oh, we're fine with that, but then when it starts to go in that direction -- I know this sounds jaded -- then all of a sudden they'll come back and say -- and maybe they can't do anything to stop it -- but say this C-3 is no, no, no; this is not what we wanted. So I know that sounds a little jaded, and I don't want to ignore the people. But I -- I'm repeating myself, but I can't believe they really want a bunch of bars and restaurants. And I concur with Joe and Karl that we -- I think the best thing here is residential. I'm just concerned about -- even 12 stories seems high to me at this point. COMMISSIONER FRY: I could -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: But even if there's a poker game going on between the two parties, what's that have to do with us? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I would -- I punt to the -- we make the recommendation, and it goes to the Board of County Commissioners. I mean, that's the name of the game, and they're going to have to make the final decision. All we can do is advise and consent based on our review of the project. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But you're all saying you're comfortable ignoring the public -- the large public outcry. Not the little one. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I think the public doesn't understand -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Whoa. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) (Interruption by the stenographer for clarification.) COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Let me -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Whoa, I think they're way more sophisticated. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No, I don't think the public understands that the restrictions today to meet the flood elevation requirements and all the other requirements at a 21-foot for a first habitable floor, that anything that goes in there is going to have a height at least of -- if not one, two stories of parking, something over two stories of parking. Just -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- even a restaurant. You're not going to build a restaurant at ground level. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER SHEA: They have as many experts as the petitioner has, and shame on them if they don't know that. They've stated they're comfortable with C-3. They've got experts telling them and counseling them. COMMISSIONER FRY: Actually, I mean, the presentation that I heard was -- and I think the most official group was Save Vanderbilt Beach that represents the public, thousands of people, and that was a proposal for a lower alternative to this, which was 12 stories and nine stories and a little bit more density. So they were -- they were in support of residential, just a more limited residential, not too far from what Mr. Sabo -- a different variation, a different flavor of what Mr. Sabo presented. So I guess I would present -- Joe's presented basically a recommendation to approve as it is. I would support an alternative at a -- an actual height of 150 feet, I think, is what you suggested with the same density -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, what -- COMMISSIONER FRY: -- and staff conditions. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 121 of 126 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: How many -- how many -- how many -- I'd have to ask the architect then, because I want to know if at that -- at that -- at 150 feet, how many stories is that? MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I? Can I? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: In order to go to 12 over two, the zoned height would be 160. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: 160. MR. YOVANOVICH: So that's a reduction of 22 feet of zoned height and then 22 feet off of actual. COMMISSIONER VERNON: So what -- Commissioner Schmitt's proposal would only -- would be actual height 160? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, that would be zoned. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Zoned height. MR. YOVANOVICH: Because you've got to remember, I've got to get 21 feet in the air just to start having residential floor. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Zoned height was 182. Now you're talking 160. MR. YOVANOVICH: Did I hear it right, Bob? MR. HALL: Yep. COMMISSIONER FRY: How many stories is Beachmoor? How many residential stories? Is it 12? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Twelve. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. Do we know the zoned height of Beachmoor -- MR. YOVANOVICH: The problem is Beachmoor was built before you had the ceilings that people command today, and the zoning -- the minimum elevation was a different minimum elevation. So, you're -- I don't think -- I can give you the height, but I don't think it's an apples-to-apples comparison. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Fair. Fair comment, but I'd still like to know the zoned and the actual of those two -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know that I know -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: -- Regatta and Beachmoor. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think Beachmoor was -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: 148 actual, Regatta, and then if you -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Oh, Regatta was -- CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: One at a time. MR. YOVANOVICH: He's right. I know Regatta, the actual height was 148. I don't know -- and the zoned -- remember, Regatta has that interesting -- the -- Regatta had -- it was 10 stories. It was 100 feet or 10 stories, whichever was greater. So I think we thought it was 125 zoned, 148 actual -- I could be -- I know the actual I'm absolutely right on, and the Beachmoor -- we're pulling it up. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm going to make a recommendation. I make a recommendation for approval of PL20190000696, which is the GMPA, Vanderbilt Beach Road mixed-use as recommended by staff as the -- for the Growth Management Plan amendment, and I recommend, for the One -- zoning PUD -- Naples amended to no greater than 160 feet zoned height, which is 12 stories over parking; that traffic improvements -- all traffic improvements will be completed prior to the issuing of the first certificate of occupancy, and that all the other requirements, as specified by the developer to include all of the architectural renderings, will be included as part of the PUD packet as a commitment to the design that was presented, and to include both low-rise and the two towers as part of the petition, and to include the three deviations 5.A.a Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 122 of 126 as proposed -- as posed by the applicant and recommended approval by staff. So that is my recommendation for the GMPA as well as the PUDZ. So that's my motion. COMMISSIONER FRY: I would be in favor of 150 feet of zoned height but not -- 160, I think we're -- it's a little bit beyond my comfort level, so I would -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: Yeah, my -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I understand, Karl, it's probably -- then that's down another floor. But the real driving factor here was within the last year, the FEMA elevation requirements drove all of these measurements up. They drove them all up. And any redevelopment that's going to take place there is going to meet these requirements. And I don't know if Jamie's still here. And where are we, Jamie, with the new map studies? It's going to probably even be more of a significant impact; is that correct? So this falls under the existing, but -- MR. FRENCH: So -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Introduce yourself for the record since you haven't testified yet. I haven't been sworn in. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. FRENCH: Yes, at 6:33 p.m. Thank you. Commissioners, Jamie French, for the record, Deputy Department Head. The -- we are currently under a study right now. The petitioner's engineer firm, again, I referred to them in previous testimony, is they're very good in this field as well. The current maps have not been filed yet with the Federal Registry, but once they do, it will be the most restrictive data at the time. So there'll be some lim (phonetic) wall for limited wave action movement considerations. There'll be some different construction standards that will take effect, and in the event that there's ever any type of reconstruction or new construction, it will all fall under that more restrictive code. So, Commissioner Schmitt is -- he's correct in his suggestion that the development standards are changing, and it will change for that entire community. That is, in fact, if these maps are adopted. We intend to go through some appeals. That's yet to have gone to the Board of County Commissioners, but most likely FEMA is -- our last study that we're still in with them is from 2007, and we've still not settled that with FEMA. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Well, there's a motion on the floor. We have to -- CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Yes, and I second it because I -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- call the question. COMMISSIONER FRY: Discussion? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: -- because I feel the same -- I feel totally different about this than you do. I was here -- I've been here for 32 years, so I was -- I remember when there was no Pelican Bay. COMMISSIONER FRY: Wow. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: So I was here before that with someone who bought into it, and the only way you could go to the beach was on a tram, and there was nothing built. So things change. And if you're not going to keep -- well, go ahead. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I think we're kind of moving towards a compromise myself, but I guess I'm falling along Karl's lines is that, as I understand it now, the motion is 182 feet, roughly, actual height. And forget about Beachmoor. But just look at Regatta at 148 feet. And I understand the world's changing but, still, that's a little bit a bridge too far for me. So I'd like to -- I don't think I'd support that motion. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 123 of 126 But I think we're kind of moving together, it sounds like. And I don't know where you are, Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, I guess, it was -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, it was 160 feet -- well, yeah, correct. It's 180 from ground height, yeah. COMMISSIONER FRY: I would like to ask -- I'm trying to just remember, Save Vanderbilt Beach, you proposed 12-story and 9-story. Were those -- that was over two stories of parking. Am I able to ask him to come up and just clarify or no? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: No. COMMISSIONER FRY: No, okay. COMMISSIONER SHEA: We closed the public. Does anyone know what the actual -- the zoned height of the proposed alternative solution was? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: No, no, no. MR. BROOKES: Why does he get to speak? (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER FRY: Nobody gets to speak? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: No. It's done. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, we're past that point. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Please sit -- stop, please. Please, please, please. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Karl, I think they're relying on this document, but I think they were looking at building height, if I understand their document, at only 100 feet. So I think we're -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, it says 12 stories, 135 feet; nine stories, 102 feet. I think that was zoned height. MR. BROOKES: Actual height. COMMISSIONER FRY: That was actual height. So those are much shorter stories then than are being proposed, and maybe -- yeah. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: We have a motion and a second. Is there more discussion or -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: The motion's at 160, though, right, zoned height? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Zoned. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Did anyone second the motion? (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Fourteen stories over two stories parking. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: I did. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Which is 160 zoned height for the two towers. All the setbacks remain as proposed or as -- as proposed by the applicant. The setbacks do not change. COMMISSIONER SHEA: And the heights and the setbacks on the other building stay the same as proposed? Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. The low-rise, four feet, if I recall, from the -- to match the neighboring property. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm not sure I can -- I have concerns about the setback as well, because I believe one of the major complaints was the canyon effect, and I did not -- I felt something was missing that I really would have liked to have had to evaluate and be able to satisfy myself that the canyon effect was not an issue. But the renderings were all street level, and they only showed up about 20 feet. There wasn't anything that showed you on the street level looking at a 208-story -- 208-foot building that's 25 feet. I know just the corner is, but I do believe that you have some very high heights very close to the road, that it would have been nice to see renderings that accurately depicted what that would look like from the street. So I would have to -- I really could not go forward and approve that height, but I could 5.A.a Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 124 of 126 approve a reduction of that height if that was feasible with the other commissioners. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Well, we have a -- do you have more discussion, or I'm going to call for -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: You need a second. I don't think -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah, we have a second. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: I seconded already. So all those in favor of the motion -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You have to vote one at a time, so the GMP amendment -- CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Oh, you did them both at the same -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Roll call vote? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I labeled each one, but I'm recommending approval for both. The first one as approved by -- and proffered by staff, so we could vote on that. The second one as amended as I discussed. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So we have two votes to -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We have two votes to -- CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: So on the GMP, that's the first one? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: As proposed. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: You motioned and I second. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. Aye. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Opposed, like sign. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Nay. COMMISSIONER FRY: Nay. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Nay. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: For the GMP. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. So it passes -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's 3-3. COMMISSIONER SHEA: 3-3. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Oh, 3-3. You said no. COMMISSIONER VERNON: I said no. COMMISSIONER FRY: It's a hung jury. COMMISSIONER VERNON: It's a hung jury. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: But the GMP doesn't include any height. So what's the basis for the -- for saying no? Because you -- the two of you -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Doubling the density. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- have indicated that you're not opposed to changing the GMP. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Madam Chair, may I respond to that? You know, I think what -- I think Joe's moving in the right direction, and I think Karl and I are close to getting there. I guess what I would be pushing for is a little less height. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: But that's not in the Growth Management Plan. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That has nothing to do with the GMP. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. Well, first time mistake, so... COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. I understand. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 125 of 126 COMMISSIONER VERNON: But I'm hesitant to approve anything until I'm comfortable with everything. COMMISSIONER FRY: I agree with that. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Exactly. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Are you going to take a motion on the PUD? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I already made a motion on the PUD as stated. I don't want to go over it all again. It's on the record. But I did state 160 zoned height, which is 12 stories over two stories parking and all the other elements that I addressed, to include the -- all of the architectural standards and traffic improvements that will be completed prior to the issuing of the first certificate of occupancy for any of the units within the development. COMMISSIONER SHEA: It we don't approve the GMP, why do the second one? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No, it's a -- a 3-3 is not a denial. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: It's a recommendation to the commissioners. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: We're only recommending anyways. COMMISSIONER FRY: Joe, would you consider an additional condition to set a minimum of 10,000 square feet of commercial as part of that motion? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It does have a minimum already. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: It's in there already. COMMISSIONER FRY: It has a -- this says up to 10,000 square feet. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: It's a maximum of 10,000. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Oh, maximum. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: It's in the GMP. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Is there a minimum? COMMISSIONER FRY: And I'm just suggesting that we get a certain minimum amount of commercial to support beachgoers and residents. And I'm not -- I'm not even saying -- listen, I'm not saying that I support that, because I can't vote yes on that and no on the GMP, but I believe if this goes to the County Commission, that at least it's something for them to consider and make the decision on. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, if you're not changing your GMP vote -- CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: There's already a motion. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- then it wouldn't make sense to change the -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I mean, it's already in the GMP. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- zoning vote. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: There's a motion already on the floor, and -- by Joe, and I second. And all those in favor, signify by saying aye for the GMP. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Aye. And all those opposed? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Nay. COMMISSIONER FRY: Nay. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Nay. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: 3-3. COMMISSIONER FRY: Just like the federal government. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Hung jury. COMMISSIONER FRY: Hung jury. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) November 5, 2020 Page 126 of 126 MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I be the vice president and break the tie. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Ned would have been the guy. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Well, I'm a little confused -- before we adjourn. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: We have -- COMMISSIONER VERNON: We can't have another motion? I mean, we -- CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: No, that's it. COMMISSIONER VERNON: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: We had -- there's no new business, no old business. Public comment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: I don't think so. So this -- no further business, we are adjourned. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:41 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., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: 11-05-20CCPC Unsigned Formatted (14295 : 11/5/2020 CCPC Meeting Minutes) 12/03/2020 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.1 Item Summary: ***Note: This item was continued from the November 5, 2020 CCPC meeting to the November 19, 2020 CCPC meeting and further continued to the December 3, 2020 CCPC Meeting*** PL20190000808 CU - A Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida amending Resolution No. 03-332, which established a conditional use for earthmining, to expand the conditional use for earthmining pursuant to Section 2.03.01.A.1.c.1 of the Collier County Land Development Code by adding 231.73± acres and revising the conditions of approval for the property located in the Agricultural (A) zoning district within the Mobile Home Overlay (MHO) and the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSAO), for a total of 450.7± acres. The property is located on the west side of SR 29 North, south of SR 82 in the Immokalee Planning Area in Sections 18 And 19, Township 46 South Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Timothy Finn, AICP, Principal Planner] Meeting Date: 12/03/2020 Prepared by: Title: Operations Analyst – Planning Commission Name: Diane Lynch 11/19/2020 3:54 PM Submitted by: Title: Manager - Planning – Zoning Name: Ray Bellows 11/19/2020 3:54 PM Approved By: Review: Planning Commission Diane Lynch Review item Skipped 11/19/2020 3:31 PM Zoning Diane Lynch Review Item Skipped 11/19/2020 3:31 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Diane Lynch Review Item Skipped 11/19/2020 3:31 PM Growth Management Department Diane Lynch Review Item Skipped 11/19/2020 3:31 PM Zoning Diane Lynch Review Item Skipped 11/19/2020 3:31 PM Planning Commission Edwin Fryer Meeting Pending 12/03/2020 9:00 AM 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 132 CU-PL20190000808, EDWARDS GROVE ROAD MINE Revised Date: November 5, 2020 Page 1 of 11 STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION – ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: NOVEMBER 19, 2020 SUBJECT: CU-PL20190000808; EDWARDS GROVE ROAD MINE ______________________________________________________________________________ PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT/AGENT: Owners: Nick Stewart, Manager Southwestern Properties, LLC 2875 Jupiter Park Dr, Suite 1100 Jupiter, FL 33458 James Paul Tippen Bay Properties, LLLP 5701 Ft. Denaud Road Labelle, FL 33975 Agents: Jessica Harrelson, AICP Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. Davidson Engineering, Inc. Coleman, Yovanovich & 4365 Radio Road, Suite 201 Koester, P.A. Naples, FL 34104 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 REQUESTED ACTION: To have the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application amending Resolution No. 03-332, which established a conditional use for earthmining, to expand the conditional use for earthmining pursuant to Section 2.03.01.A.1.c.1 of the Collier County Land Development Code by adding 231.73± acres and revising the conditions of approval for the property located in the Agricultural (A) zoning district within the Mobile Home Overlay (MHO) and the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSAO), for a total of 450.7± acres. 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Staff Report - Edwards Grove Road Mine (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) CU-PL20190000808, EDWARDS GROVE ROAD MINE Revised Date: November 5, 2020 Page 2 of 11 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is located on the west side of SR 29 North, south of SR 82 in the Immokalee Planning Area in Sections 18 And 19, Township 46 South Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida. (See location map on the following page) PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The subject property consists of ± 450.7 acres, under multiple ownership who provided authorization via affidavit. The purpose of this Conditional Use (CU) application is to expand the existing mine conditional use to include property adjacent to the west. The intent of this Conditional Use request is to allow for the proposed expansion of an existing commercial excavation operation, as provided for in the Conditional Use provisions within the A-MHO- RSLAO District. The existing commercial excavation site currently operates as permitted by Resolution 03-332. Intentionally blank 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Staff Report - Edwards Grove Road Mine (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) CU-PL20190000808, EDWARDS GROVE ROAD MINE Revised Date: November 5, 2020 Page 3 of 11 9.A.1.aPacket Pg. 135Attachment: Staff Report - Edwards Grove Road Mine (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine CU-PL20190000808, EDWARDS GROVE ROAD MINE Revised Date: November 5, 2020 Page 4 of 11 9.A.1.aPacket Pg. 136Attachment: Staff Report - Edwards Grove Road Mine (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine CU-PL20190000808, EDWARDS GROVE ROAD MINE Revised Date: November 5, 2020 Page 5 of 11 SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: This section of the staff report identifies the land uses and zoning classifications for properties surrounding the boundaries of the subject property, which is undeveloped and zoned Agricultural (A) zoning district within the Mobile Home Overlay (MHO) and the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSAO): North: Developed agricultural, with a current zoning designation of Agricultural (A) zoning district within the Mobile Home Overlay (MHO) and the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSAO) East: Developed mining excavation (Stewart Mining), with a current zoning designation of Agricultural (A) zoning district within the Mobile Home Overlay (MHO) and the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSAO) then further east is developed sparse residential/undeveloped land with a current zoning designation of Agricultural (A) zoning district within the Mobile Home Overlay (MHO) and the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSAO) South: Developed agricultural, with a current zoning designation of Agricultural (A) zoning district within the Mobile Home Overlay (MHO) and the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSAO) West: Lamm Rd (local road), then developed as agricultural, with a current zoning designation of Agricultural (A) zoning district within the Mobile Home Overlay (MHO) and the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSAO) Aerial (Davidson Engineering) 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Staff Report - Edwards Grove Road Mine (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) CU-PL20190000808, EDWARDS GROVE ROAD MINE Revised Date: November 5, 2020 Page 6 of 11 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Comprehensive Planning staff has reviewed this request and offered the following comments: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is designated Agricultural/Rural and within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSAO) as shown on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). On the Stewardship Overlay Map, part of the FLUM series, the site is designated “Open.” Currently, the proposed additional acreage is mostly citrus groves and zoned A, Rural Agricultural Zoning District, within a Mobile Home Overlay (MHO), and within Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSAO). The “A” zoning district allows a conditional use for an extraction or earth mining use (CU #1), as listed in the Land Development Code (LDC) Chapter 2.03.01 A.1.c.1. This CU is an expansion encompassing ±218.97-acres of an existing earth mining operation for a total of approximately 450.7 acres. The FLUE states, in relevant part: “The Agricultural/Rural Land Use Designation is for those areas that are remote from the existing development pattern, lack public facilities and services, are environmentally sensitive or are in agricultural production. Urbanization is not promoted; therefore, most allowable land uses are of low intensity in an effort to maintain and promote the rural character of these lands.” The proposed earthmining, oil extraction, and related processing is listed as an allowable use in this designation in the FLUE. Based on the above analysis, staff finds the subject petition consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. (See Attachment B) Transportation Element: The project is consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan, which 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 reveal s 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. 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Staff Report - Edwards Grove Road Mine (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) CU-PL20190000808, EDWARDS GROVE ROAD MINE Revised Date: November 5, 2020 Page 7 of 11 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.” According to the TIS provided with this petition dated December 3, 2019, the proposed Mining Operation will generate a projected total of +/- 49 PM peak hour, 2-way trips (consistent with the existing approved Conditional Use) on the adjacent roadway State Road 29 and State Road 82. According to the current 2019 AUIR, the road segment (link 86.0/County Road 29) State Road 29 to State Road 82 operates at a LOS of “D” with a remaining capacity of 214 trips (peak capacity service volume is 900). Additionally, the State Road 82 (link 88.0) State Road 29 to the Lee County Line, operates at a LOS of “E” with a remaining capacity of 1 trip (peak capacity service volume is 800). Staff notes that State Road 82, link 88.0, is a funded road improvement (fiscal year 2020) which upon completion is anticipated to increase capacity on this link. State statutes, specifically 163.3180, directs development to proceed when improvements are funded within the planning period. Therefore, the subject Conditional Use can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan, and as noted above the Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) indicates that the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate this project within the 5-year planning period. Transportation Review: Transportation Division staff has reviewed the petition request, the CU document and Master Plan for right-of-way and access issues and is recommending approval. Stormwater Review: The proposed conditional use expansion request is not anticipated to create drainage problems or adverse impacts to surrounding properties in the area. Stormwater best management practices, treatment, and storage will be addressed through the environmental resource permitting process with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (F.D.E.P.). Additionally, the same Best Management Practices, Erosion Control Measures, and Pollution Prevention Plan associated with the current permitted operation will continue to be used for the proposed expansion. The proposed mining will be subject to Chapter 62-330 Environmental Resource Permitting and mandatory reclamation requirements of F.D.E.P. Chapter 62C -39, Florida Administrative Code. Landscape Review: The Buffers labeled on the Master Concept Plan are consistent with the LDC. Environmental Review: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the conditional use petition to address environmental concerns. The property has been historically cleared for agricultural use and maintained clear of native vegetation. The Master Plan does not show a preserve, since no minimum preservation is required. The environmental data indicates the proposed project is in an area that has the potential to contain a variety of protected animal species. The listed species survey revealed three gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) burrows were observed on site. The burrows are located along the perimeter of the property (two burrows along the west and one burrow along the south). A gopher tortoise relocation permit will need to be obtained from the Florida Wildlife Conservation 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Staff Report - Edwards Grove Road Mine (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) CU-PL20190000808, EDWARDS GROVE ROAD MINE Revised Date: November 5, 2020 Page 8 of 11 Commission (FWCC) prior to approval of the first development order. The subject property is located within core foraging ranges for three Wood stork (Mycteria americana) colonies. However, consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for mitigation is unlikely since the drainage ditches found onsite are not maintained and don’t appear to contain wood stork foraging habitat. The Environmental Data indicates the subject property falls within FWS Secondary Florida Panther (Felis concolor coryi) habitat. There were no observations of panther onsite and the telemetry data indicates Florida panther are not abundant within the boundary of the proposed project. The property does not contain habitats preferred by the Florida panther; therefore, consultation with FWS to obtain panther mitigation is unlikely. 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. Environmental Planning staff recommends approval of the proposed petition. Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental review staff has found this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME). The project site is 450.70 acres and includes an existing mine operation and orange grove. STAFF ANALYSIS: When considering a Conditional Use petition, the CCPC must make findings that 1) approval of the Conditional Use will not adversely affect the public interest and will not adversely affect other property of uses in the same district of neighborhood; 2) all specific requirements for the individual Conditional Use will be met; and 3) satisfactory provisions have been made concerning the following matters, where applicable: 1. Section 2.03.01.A.1.c.1, of the LDC, permits conditional uses in the Agricultural (A) zoning district within the Mobile Home Overlay (MHO) and the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSAO). The requested use for an earthmining facility is allowed as conditional uses in the Agricultural (A) zoning district within the Mobile Home Overlay (MHO) and the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSAO), subject to the standards and procedures established in section 10.08.00, conditional uses procedures, of the LDC. 2. Consistency with the Land Development Code (LDC) and the Growth Management Plan (GMP). This request is consistent with the GMP and, with the conditions proposed by staff, this project will be in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Land Development Code (LDC). 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Staff Report - Edwards Grove Road Mine (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) CU-PL20190000808, EDWARDS GROVE ROAD MINE Revised Date: November 5, 2020 Page 9 of 11 3. Ingress and egress to the property and proposed structures thereon, with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe. Ingress and egress to the subject property will be limited to a single access point on Edwards Grove Road as shown on the master site plan. The TIS submitted by the applicant indicates that the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity (as noted above consistent with Florida State Statues) to accommodate this project within the 5-year planning period. The roadway infrastructure (as noted above consistent with Florida State Statues) 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. The project’s development must also comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations and operational improvements when development approvals are sought at time of Site Development Plan (SDP) review. 4. The effect the Conditional Use would have on neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic, or odor effects. Considering the location and the existing commercial excavation operation, that is currently operating to the eastern parcel (as identified on the Conceptual Site Plan) no additional noise, glare, economic impact, or odor is anticipated. Additionally, with no residential land uses in near proximity to the proposed Conditional Use, no adverse impacts to the human population are anticipated. The proposed Conditional Use seeks only to expand the existing mining operation. 5. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district. If the proposed Conditions of Approval are adopted, the proposed earthmining facility can be found compatible with adjacent properties and other properties in the immediate area. Based on the above findings, this conditional use should, with stipulations as outlined in this staff report be recommended for approval. It is important to note that the conditions of approval from the existing Conditional Use adopted via Resolution 03-332 will be modified, per the following as described in Attachment C – Existing Conditions, Res 03-332. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The applicant conducted a duly noticed and advertised NIM on July 23, 2020, at the Immokalee Sports Complex, located at 505 Escambia St., Immokalee, FL 34142. The meeting commenced at approximately 5:30 p.m. and ended at 5:45 p.m. The applicant’s agent explained the request for the conditional use. Jessica Harrelson, the agent, conducted the meeting with introductions of the consultant team and staff, and an overview of the proposed earthmining expansion application. Ms. Harrelson gave a PowerPoint presentation with review of the total site area, 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Staff Report - Edwards Grove Road Mine (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) CU-PL20190000808, EDWARDS GROVE ROAD MINE Revised Date: November 5, 2020 Page 10 of 11 location, and zoning. She gave a detailed overview of the master concept plan with regard to development area, access and circulation, perimeter landscape buffers, and right-of-way reservation. She also explained the proposed conditions of approval. The meeting was opened to attendees; however, no questions were asked. No commitments were made. A copy of the Zoom attendees, NIM summary, and PowerPoint presentation, are included in the Backup Materials in Attachment D. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney’s Office reviewed the staff report on 11-4-20. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) approve Petition CU- PL20190000808, subject to the following conditions: 1. Edwards Road Grove Road Mine Conditional Use shall be limited to what is depicted on the “Master Concept Plan, revised 11/03/2020,” prepared by Davidson Engineering. 2. The petitioner shall obtain a South Florida Water Management District Agricultural Surface Water Management Permit or permit modification for this site, if applicable. 3. The site shall be cleared of all exotic vegetation and maintained exotic-free in perpetuity. 4. Material hauling activities are permitted from 5:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and 24 hours a day Monday through Sunday for excavation and processing activities. 5. The excavation shall be contained by a berm constructed to the height of the 100-year flood elevation. Unless the berm contains adequate clay content to slow the flow of water (as determined by the Collier County Transportation Engineering Division), the berm shall contain a membrane impervious to water. 6. The site shall be limited to a maximum of 49 pm peak hour, two‐way trips based on the use codes in the ITE Manual on trip generation rates in effect at time of application for SDP/SDPA or subdivision plat approval, or based on an alternate methodology accepted by staff at time of application for SDP/SDPA in accordance with the County’s Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) guidelines in Resolution No. 2006‐299, as it may be amended. 7. Evidence of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) accepted mitigation for impacts to panthers, woodstorks, Florida black bear and other listed species will be required prior to excavation permit approval, if applicable. 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Staff Report - Edwards Grove Road Mine (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) CU-PL20190000808, EDWARDS GROVE ROAD MINE Revised Date: November 5, 2020 Page 11 of 11 8. A littoral shelf planting area to commence during the reclamation phase of the project shall be shown on the excavation permit for this petition and shall meet the current standards of the Land Development Code at time of submittal of the Commercial Excavation Permit. 9. Prior to any vehicular use of the additional 231.73± acres, the owner shall post two (2) signs along the on-site entry drive, clearly visible to vehicles entering and leaving the site, providing information regarding potential panther presence and notifying drivers of the need to use caution. Sign wording, placement, and size will be reviewed and approved by the Collier County Environmental Staff during review of the Commercial Excavation Application or other local development order, whichever is the first to allow vehicular use of the 231.73± acres. 10. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. 11. 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. 12. The westernmost 200 feet of the parcel shall be reserved for road right-of-way, for the purpose of the future Little League Road extension. Within 90 days of receipt of written notification by Collier County Transportation that the property is needed, the owner will convey the requested property to the County, for fair market value on the date of the conveyance. 13. The petitioner shall be responsible for maintenance of Edwards Grove Road, from State Road 82 to the subject 450.7± acre property line, for the duration of the mining operation. Edwards Grove Road shall be paved a minimum of 22 feet in width and a depth of 1.5 inches of asphalt or asphalt millings. Attachments: A) Proposed Resolution B) FLUE Consistency Review C) Existing Conditions of Approval via RES 03-332 D) Application/Backup Materials E) Hybrid Waiver – Southwestern Properties LLC F) Hybrid Waiver – Tippen Bay Properties, LLLP 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Staff Report - Edwards Grove Road Mine (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.bPacket Pg. 148Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Resolution (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 1 of 3 Growth Management Department Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section Memorandum To: Tim Finn, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Services Section From: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Section Date: July 23, 2020 Subject: Future Land Use Element Consistency Review PETITION NUMBER: PL20190000808 – REV:3 PETITION NAME: Edwards Grove Road Mine CU REQUEST: To obtain a Conditional Use (CU) for a ±450.7-acre site, consisting of two separately owned parcels. The request is to expand the existing commercial excavation operation (Stewart Materials) to include property adjacent to the west (extending to the east side of Lamm Road). The applicant is submitting “Proposed Conditions of Approval” to replace the former conditions that were included in Resolution #03-332. This project is related to a former application (PL20170003512) Stewart Mining CU that was withdrawn. Submittal 2 revised the Conditions of Approval to add the reservation of 200 feet of the westernmost part of the parcel but asked for further evaluation by Collier County Transportation. Submittal 3 revised the Master Plan to show 200’ ROW reservation for Little League Road extension and removed the 50’ ROW reservation. LOCATION: The current operating site of Stewart Mining lies approximately ½ mile north of the urbanized area of Immokalee, abutting the west side of Edwards Grove Road, with the proposed expansion site located east of Lamm Road (adjacent to the western property boundary of Stewart Mining), approximately 1.3 miles south of SR 82 and approximately 1 mile west of SR 29, in Section 18 and 19, Township 46 South, Range 29 East (Immokalee). COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject property is designated Agricultural/Rural and within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSAO) as shown on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). On the Stewardship Overlay Map, part of the FLUM series, the site is designated “Open.” Currently the proposed additional acreage is mostly citrus groves and zoned A, Rural Agricultural Zoning District, within a Mobile Home Overlay (MHO), and within Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSAO). The “A” zoning district allows a conditional use for an extraction or earth mining use (CU #1), as listed in the Land Development Code (LDC) Chapter 2.03.01 A.1.c.1. This CU is an expansion encompassing ±218.97-acres of an existing earth mining operation for a total of approximately 450.7 acres. 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Attachment B - FLUE Consistency Review (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 2 of 3 The FLUE states, in relevant part: “The Agricultural/Rural Land Use Designation is for those areas that are remote from the existing development pattern, lack public facilities and services, are environmentally sensitive or are in agricultural production. Urbanization is not promoted; therefore, most allowable land uses are of low intensity in an effort to maintain and promote the rural character of these lands.” The proposed earthmining, oil extraction and related processing is listed as an allowable use in this designation in the FLUE. In the FLUE, it also states that the goal of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay is to address the long- term needs of residents and property owners within the Immokalee Area Study boundary of the Collier County Rural and Agricultural Area Assessment by protecting agricultural activities, preventing the premature conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses, directing incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat, enabling the conversion of rural land to other uses in appropriate locations, discouraging urban sprawl, and encouraging development that implements creative land use planning techniques.” RLSA Policies 1.4 and 1.5 provide that properties in the RLSA may develop per the “Baseline Standards” (uses allowed by the underlying “A” zoning and Agricultural/Rural FLUM designation) which allow earth mining by conditional use. The “Proposed Conditions of Approval” - Attachment D included the following changes: • #3 permits material hauling activities between 5 am and 5 pm Monday through Saturday. Current approval for excavation activities permitted from 6:30 am and 7 pm Monday through Saturday. • #4 - now states the berm will be determined by Collier County Transportation Engineering Division; it used to say Collier County Engineering Services Department. • #5 adds maximum total daily trip generation as 49 peak-hour two-way trips • #6 adds evidence of accepted mitigation for impacts to wildlife • #7 adds littoral shelf planting area to commence during the reclamation phase of the project • #8 adds 2 signs warning drivers entering property of potential panthers • #9 must obtain all federal and state permits prior to commencement of development • #10 states county permits do not remove liability for state and federal permits Certain applicable Future Land Use Element (FLUE) policies are shown below in italics followed by staff analysis in bold text. FLUE Policy 5.6 (shown below in italics) followed by staff analysis in [bracketed bold text]. New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004, as amended). [Comprehensive Planning staff leaves this determination to Zoning staff as part of their review of the petition.] 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 subject property does not front on a collector or arterial roadway.] Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to hel p reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. [The site is proposed as an expansion of a single development project. Due to the nature of the proposed use, this policy is not applicable. A loop road along the perimeter of the entire project site is shown in the Trip Generation Analysis.] 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Attachment B - FLUE Consistency Review (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 3 of 3 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 applicant’s “Narrative & Evaluation Criteria” – Attachment “C” states, “Interconnections to the property to the east are proposed, to achieve the unified form of development.” Given the nature of the proposed use as well as its location, staff believes interconnections to adjacent lands – other than the one to the east, to the existing CU site - may not be appropriate or beneficial.] 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. [Mostly not applicable, given that this is a proposal for a mining and excavation operation – not a residential development. Attachment “C” states, “As this is a commercial excavation operation, the site will not be open to the public. Sidewalks/pathways will be provided only as necessary for employees within the site and as required by the LDC.”] CONCLUSION Based on the above analysis, staff finds the subject petition consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. PETITION ON CITYVIEW cc: Anita Jenkins, AICP, Community Planning Manager, Zoning Division Raymond V. Bellows, Manager, Zoning Division, Zoning Services Section CU-PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road R3.docx 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Attachment B - FLUE Consistency Review (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) i CU AR CONDITIONS The Petitioner shall obtain a South Florida Water Management District Agricultural Surface Water Management Permit or permit modification for this site if applicable The site shall be cleared of all exotic vegetation and maintained exotic free in perpetuity The petitioner shall pave the access road from State Road to the subject property line prior to commencement of earthmining operations The pavement shall bea minimum of feet in width and a depth of inches of asphalt or asphalt millings The petitioner shall be responsible for maintenance of the access road for the duration of the operation Turn lanes on SR westbound left in eastbound right in shall be provided prior to commencement of earthrnining operations Excavation activities are permitted from AM until PM Monday through Saturday The excavation shall becontained by a berm constructed to the height of the year flood elevation Unless the berm contains adequate clay content to slow the flow of water as determined by the Collicr County Engineering Services Department the berm shall contain a membrane impervious to water A landscaped berm feet in height shall be constructed adjacent to parcels zoned residential within months of the adjacent parcel being rezoned The easternmost feet of the parcel shall be reserved for right of way and shall bedeeded to Collier County at no cost to Collier County within days of receipt of notification by the Collier County Transportation Services Department that the property is needed for the purpose of providing a right of way connection from Westclox Road to State Road EXHIBIT D This has been retained in the updated Conditions (Condition #2) This Condition has been retained and udpated to address operational needs of the site. (Condition #4) Access road was paved & an updated version of this has been retained in the new Conditions (Condition #13) This work has been complete and is not neded in the updated Conditions of Approval. This has been retained in the updated Conditions (Condition #3) This is not longer required. Through coordination with CC Transportation a ROW Reservation for the westermost 200' of the parcel has been added as Condition #12 and is shown on the updated Conceptual Plan. This Condition has been retained. (Condition #5) This is not needed in the updated Conditions of Approval (no adjacent residentially zoned properties/uses) 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Attachment C - Existing Conditions of Approval via RES 03-332 (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 5/08/2018 Page 1 of 12 APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR: CONDITIONAL USE LDC Section 10.08.00 & Code of Laws section 2-83 – 2-90 Chapter 3 C.1 of the Administrative Code PETITION NO (PL) PROJECT NAME DATE PROCESSED A CONDITIONAL USE TO BE HEARD BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE TO BE HEARD BY THE OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER 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(s): _____________________________________________________________ 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 Southwestern Properties, LLC and Tippen Bay Properties, LLLP Rudd Jones, P.E., Director of Development 2875 Jupiter Park Dr, Suite 1100 Jupiter FL 33458 561-972-4517 rudd@stewartmaterials.com Jessica Harrelson, AICP & Richard Yovanovich, Esq. Davidson Engineering, Inc. & Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. 4365 Radio Road, Suite 201 Naples FL 34104 239-434-6060/239-435-3535 jessica@davidsonengineering.com, ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 5/08/2018 Page 2 of 12 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: ______ PROPERTY INFORMATION On separate page, provide a detailed legal description of the property covered by the application: x If the request involves changes to more than one zoning district, the applicant shall include separate legal description for property involved in each district; x 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 x 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. Property I.D. Number: ____________________________ Plat Book: _______ Page #: _______ Section/Township/Range: _______ /_______ /_______ Subdivision: __________________________________________Lot: ________ Block: ________ Metes & Bounds Description: _____________________________________________________ Size of Property: _____ft. X ______ ft. = _______ Total Sq. Ft. Acres: _____________ Address/ General Location of Subject Property: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ See Attachment "A" Immokalee Civic Association 502 E. New Market Rd Immokalee FL 34142 00065520004 & 00065680009 18 & 19 46 29 see attached survey and attachment "B" ±450.7 acres 2301 and 2315 Edwards Grove Road, Immokalee, FL 34142 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 5/08/2018 Page 3 of 12 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: (If space is inadequate, attach on a separate page) Section/Township/Range: / / Lot: Block: Subdivision: __________________________________________ Plat Book: Page #: Property I.D. Number: ____________________________ Metes & Bounds Description: ________________________________________________ CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST DETAIL Type of Conditional Use: This application is requesting a conditional use as allowed, pursuant to LDC section 2.03.00, of the _______________________ zoning district for _______________________ (type of use). Present Use of the Property: __________________________________________ A-MHO-RLSAO Existing Ag Land and Citrus Operation A-MHO-RLSAO Existing Ag Land and Citrus Operation ROW/A-MHO-RLSAO Edwards Grove Rd/Undeveloped Farmland ROW/A-MHO-RLSAO Lamm Road/Existing Ag Land and Citrus Operation A-MHO-RSLAO Commercial Excavation Citrus Grove & Existing Commercial Excavation 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 5/08/2018 Page 4 of 12 EVALUATION CRITERIA Pursuant to LDC section 10.08.00 and Chapter 3 C.1 of the Administrative Code, staff’s recommendation to the reviewing body shall be based upon a finding that the granting of the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and that the specific requirements governing the individual conditional use, if any, have been met. Further, satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning the following matters, where applicable. On a separate page, provide a narrative statement describing a request for a conditional use and a detailed response to the criteria listed below. Specify how and why the request is consistent with each of the criteria. a. Describe how the project is consistent with the Collier County Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan. Include information on how the request is consistent with the applicable section or portions of the Future Land Use Element. b. Describe the existing or planned means of ingress and egress to the property and proposed structure thereon with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe. c. Describe the effect the conditional use will have on neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic impact, and odor. d. Describe the site’s and the proposed use’s compatibility with adjacent properties and other properties in the district. e. Please provide any additional information which you may feel is relevant to this request. Deed Restrictions: The County is legally precluded from enforcing deed restrictions; however, many communities have adopted such restrictions. You may wish to contact the civic or property owners association in the area for which this use is being requested in order to ascertain whether or not the request is affected by existing deed restrictions. Previous land use petitions on the subject property: To your knowledge, has a public hearing been held on this property within the last year? 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? No Yes (If yes please provide copies.) See Attachment "C" No 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 5/08/2018 Page 5 of 12 STATEMENT OF UTILITY PROVISIONS FOR CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST APPLICANT INFORMATION Name of Applicant(s): ___________________________________________________________ Address: ______________________________City: ___________ State: ________ ZIP: _______ Telephone: ____________________ Cell: _____________________ Fax: __________________ E-Mail Address: ________________________________________________________________ Address of Subject Property (If available): ___________________________________________ City: ________________ State: __________ ZIP: ___________ LEGAL DESCRIPTION Section/Township/Range: / / Lot: Block: Subdivision: _______________________________________________ Plat Book: Page #: Property I.D. Number: _________________________________ Metes & Bounds Description: _____________________________________________________ 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 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: ________ Southwestern Properties, LLC & Tippen Bay Properties, LLLP 2875 Jupiter Park Dr, Suite 1100 Jupiter FL 33458 561-972-4517 rudd@stewartmaterials.com 2315 Edwards Grove Road Immokalee FL 34142 18/19 46 29 00065520004 & 00065680009 see attached survey X X N/A 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 5/08/2018 Page 6 of 12 If proposing to be connected to Collier County Regional Water System, please provide the date service is expected to be required: ____________________________________________ 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. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 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. N/A N/A N/A 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 5/08/2018 Page 7 of 12 RECORDING OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS Within 30 days of adoption of the Ordinance, the owner or developer 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 F.S. §695. A recorded copy of the Memorandum or Notice shall be provided to the assigned Principal Planner, Zoning Services Department, within 15 days of recording of said Memorandum or Notice. 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. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 5/08/2018 Page 8 of 12 Pre-Application Meeting and Final Submittal Requirement Checklist for: A Conditional Use to be heard by the Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals A Minor Conditional Use to be heard by the Office of the Hearing Examiner Chapter 3 C.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 time of submittal, the checklist is to be completed and submitted with the application packet. Please provide the submittal items in the exact order listed below, with cover sheets attached to each section. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. Requirements for Review # Of Copies Required Not Required Completed Application (download current form from County website) 1 Cover letter briefly explaining the project 1 Pre-Application Notes 1 Affidavit of Authorization, signed and notarized 1 Completed Addressing Checklist 1 Property Ownership Disclosure Form 1 Warranty Deed(s) 1 Boundary Survey 1 Conceptual Site Plan 24” X 36” plus (one 8 ½ X 11 copy) Plans showing proposed location for utilities, if required Plans for screening and buffering the use with reference as to type, dimensions, and character, if required Plans showing the proposed landscaping and provisions for trees protected by County regulations, if required Plans showing the proposed signs and lighting, including type, dimensions, and character, if required Architectural Rendering of Proposed Structure(s), if applicable 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 (with all required attachments & sketches) 1 Environmental Data Requirements, pursuant to LDC section 3.08.00 1 Environmental Data Requirements collated into a single Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) at time of public hearings. Coordinate with project planner at time of public hearing. Listed Species Survey; less than 12 months old. Include copies of previous surveys. 1 Traffic Impact Study (TIS) or waiver 1 Historical and Archeological Survey, or waiver 1 Electronic copy of all documents and plans * Please advise: The Office of the Hearing Examiner requires all materials to be submitted electronically in PDF format. 1 * If located in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area, include an additional set of each submittal requirement ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 5/08/2018 Page 9 of 12 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS: x Following the completion of the review process by County review staff, the applicant shall submit all materials electronically to the designated project manager. x Please contact the project manager to confirm the number of additional copies required. Planners: Indicate if the petition needs to be routed to the following additional reviewers: Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment: Executive Director Emergency Management: Dan Summers; and/or EMS: Artie Bay Conservancy of SWFL: Nichole Johnson GMD Graphics City of Naples: Robin Singer, Planning Director Utilities Engineering: Eric Fey Parks and Recreation: Barry Williams Immokalee Water/Sewer District: Other: School District (Residential Components): Amy Lockheart Communication Towers: Mosquito Control Collier County Airport Authority Naples Airport Authority Commercial Mining: Impact Fees 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 5/08/2018 Page 10 of 12 FEE REQUIREMENTS All checks payable to: Board of County Commissioners Pre-Application Meeting: $500.00 (to be credited towards the application fee if the application is filed within 9 months of pre-application meeting) Conditional Use Application Fee: $4,000.00 o When filed with Rezone Petition: $1,500.00 o Additional fee for 5th and subsequent reviews: 20% of original fee Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review: $300.00 Environmental Data Requirements-EIS Packet (submittal determined at pre-application meeting): $2,500.00 Listed or Protected Species survey review fee (when an EIS is not required): $1,000.00 Transportation Fee, if required: o Methodology Review Fee: $500.00 o Minor Study Review Fee: $750.00 o Major Study Review Fee: $1,500.00 Estimated Legal Advertising Fee for the Hearing Examiner or CCPC: $1,125.00 Estimated Legal Advertising Fee for the BZA, if required: $500.00 Fire Code Plans Review Fees are collected at the time of application submission and those fees are set forth by the Authority having jurisdiction. The Land Development Code requires Neighborhood Notification mailers for Applications headed to hearing, and this fee is collected prior to hearing. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. All checks payable to: Board of County Commissioners. The completed application, all required submittal materials, and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Department ATTN: Business Center 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 ____________________________________________ ____________ Agent/Owner Signature Date ____________________________________________ Agent/Owner Name (please print) Jessica Harrelson, AICP 12/19/2019 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 5/08/2018 Page 11 of 12 Public Participation Requirements LDC Section 10.03.06 B. or C. Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code Notice for Minor Conditional Use Petitions Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) Requirements: Applicant must conduct a NIM at least 15 days prior to the Hearing Examiner’s receipt of the staff report and application materials in accordance with the applicable sections of the Administrative Code. The NIM shall be advertised and a mailed written notice shall be given to the property owners in the notification area at least 15 days prior to the NIM meeting. Mailed Notice: Written notice shall be sent to property owners in the notification area at least 15 days before the advertised Hearing Examiner hearing. Newspaper Advertisements: The legal advertisement shall be published at least 15 days before the advertised Hearing Examiner hearing in a newspaper of general circulation. The advertisement shall include at a minimum: x Date, time, and location of the hearing; x Description of the proposed land uses; and x 2 in. x 3 in. map of the project location. Sign: A sign shall be posted at least 15 days before the advertised Hearing Examiner hearing date. Public Hearing for Minor Conditional Use Petitions Hearing Examiner: The Hearing Examiner shall hold at least 1 advertised public hearing. See Chapter 9 of the Administrative Code for the Office of the Hearing Examiner procedures. Notice for Conditional Use Petitions Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) Requirements: Applicant must conduct a NIM at least 15 days prior to the advertised public hearing. The NIM shall be advertised and a mailed written notice shall be given to the property owners in the notification area at least 15 days prior to the NIM meeting. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 5/08/2018 Page 12 of 12 Mailed Notice: Written notice shall be sent to property owners in the notification area at least 15 days before the advertised public hearing. Newspaper Advertisements: The legal advertisement shall be published at least 15 days before the advertised public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation. The advertisement shall include at a minimum: x Date, time, and location of the hearing; x Description of the proposed land uses; and x 2 in. x 3 in. map of the project location. Sign: A sign shall be posted at least 15 days before the advertised public hearing date. Public Hearing for Conditional Use Petitions Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC): The EAC shall hold at least 1 advertised public hearing, if required. Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC): The CCPC shall hold at least 1 public hearing. Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA): The BZA shall hold at least 1 advertised public hearing. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) Stewart Mining CU – PL20190000808 Attachment “A” – Legal Description March 24, 2020 www.davidsonengineering.com LEGAL DESCRIPTION ATTACHMENT “A” A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 18 AND THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 19, RUN S 00°38'42" E ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION FOR A DISTANCE OF 2692.02 FEET TO A CONCRETE MONUMENT BEING THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 19; THENCE ALONG THE EAST-WEST QUARTER LINE OF SAID SECTION 19 S 89°27'00" W 2341.08 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF THOSE LANDS RECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 3330, PAGE 3215 AND THE EASTERLY LINE OF THOSE LANDS RECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 5350, PAGE 1271, ALL OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE N 00°35'34" W 1352.26 FEET; THENCE S 89°04'22" WEST 84.00 FEET; THENCE N 00°55'38" W 2658.69 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST-WEST QUARTER LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 18; THENCE N 88°47'54" E ALONG SAID LINE FOR A DISTANCE OF 2437.77 FEET TO A CONCRETE MONUMENT BEING THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SOUTHEAST 1/4; THENCE S 00°36'52" E ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 18 FOR A DISTANCE OF 1346.05 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. LESS AND EXCEPT THE EASTERLY THIRTY (30) FEET THEREOF. THE ABOVE DESCRIBES AN AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 218.97 ACRES OF LAND. AND A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER (SW ¼) OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST AND A PART OF THE NORTH ONE-HALF (N ½) OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 18 RUN N 00°25’14” W FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,331.53 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER (SW ¼) OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER (SW ¼) OF SAID SECTION 18; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID QUARTER-QUARTER LINE N 88°51'13" E 2,481.73 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID LINE S 00°55'38" E 2,658.69 FEET; THENCE N 89°04'22" E 84.00 FEET; 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) Stewart Mining CU – PL20190000808 Attachment “A” – Legal Description March 24, 2020 www.davidsonengineering.com THENCE S 00°35'34" E 1,352.26 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST-WEST QUARTER LINE OF SAID SECTION 19; THENCE ALONG SAID QUARTER LINE S 89°27'14" W 2,589.72 FEET TO THE WEST ONE-QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 19; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 19 N 00°29'38" W 2,652.80 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. THE ABOVE DESCRIBES AN AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 231.73 ACRES FEET OF LAND. BEARINGS ARE RELATIVE TO NORTH AMERICAN DATUM (NAD) 1983, FLORIDA EAST ZONE. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) Stewart Mining CU – PL20190000808 Attachment “B” – Disclosure of Interest December 20, 2019 www.davidsonengineering.com ATTACHMENT “B” DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST Southwestern Properties, LLC: Brown Ranch, LLC, a Florida limited liability company (formerly known as Brown Ranch, Inc.) - 33 1/3% o Edgar A. Brown, II – 3% - Manager o Edgar A. Brown and Barbara L. Brown, husband and wife – 91% jointly o Alexis Brown Peeper, formerly known as Sandra Alexis Brown – 3% o Benjamin A. Brown, II – 3% Beale Holdings, Inc., a Florida corporation – 33 1/3% o Joseph E. Beale Jr. – President Nick T. Stewart – 33 1/3% And Tippen Bay Properties, LLLP: J.R. Paul Properties, Inc. o Bryan W. Paul – President o James C Paul – Vice President 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) Stewart Mining CU – PL20190000808 Attachment “C” – Evaluation Criteria December 20, 2019 www.davidsonengineering.com NARRATIVE & EVALUATION CRITERIA ATTACHMENT “C” The intent of this Conditional Use request is to allow for the proposed expansion of an existing commercial excavation operation, as provided for in the Conditional Use provisions within the A-MHO-RSLAO District. The existing commercial excavation site currently operates as permitted by Resolution 03-332. This request also seeks to repeal and replace Resolution 03-332. Further, the purpose of this petition is to expand the existing excavation area. The current excavation will be completed, and its littoral shelf planting area(s) will be consistent with the currently approved excavation. The lake area being added will comply with the new littoral planting requirements in the LDC. The subject development consists of two separately owned parcels, together consisting of 450.70-acres. The parcels will remain under separate ownership. a. Describe how the project is consistent with the Collier County Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan. Include information on how the request is consistent with the applicable section or portions of the Future Land Use Element. Response: The A-MHO-RSLAO District allows commercial excavations as a Conditional Use. The application and proposed Conceptual Site Plan identifies all the required elements for a conditional use, as required by the LDC and thereby, the Future Land Use Element. b. Describe the existing or planned means of ingress and egress to the property and proposed structure thereon with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe. Response: The expansion site will be developed as a unified excavation with the existing commercial excavation site (eastern parcel identified on the Conceptual Site Plan). The existing ingress/egress point on Edwards Grove Road will remain, accessing the existing commercial excavation operation, and will continue to be utilized for the joint operation that this Conditional Use proposes. The expansion of the existing excavation operation will not generate additional trips to the site, as additional trucks or employees are not proposed. c. Describe the effect the conditional use will have on neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic impact, and odor. Response: Considering the location and the existing commercial excavation operation, that is currently operating to the eastern parcel (as identified on the Conceptual Site Plan) no additional noise, glare, economic impact, or odor is anticipated. Additionally, with no residential land uses in near proximity to the proposed Conditional Use, no adverse impacts to the human population are anticipated. The proposed Conditional Use seeks only to expand the existing mining operation. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) Stewart Mining CU – PL20190000808 Attachment “C” – Evaluation Criteria December 20, 2019 www.davidsonengineering.com d. Describe the site’s and the proposed use’s compatibility with adjacent properties and other properties in the district. Response: As noted previously, the proposed Conditional Use is to expand the existing commercial excavation operation, located on the eastern parcel identified on the Conceptual Site Plan. The subject development is surrounded by similar conditions and land uses. Therefore, the subject property and the proposed Conditional Use are considered compatible with the surrounding uses. e. Please provide any additional information which you may feel is relevant to this request. Response: Upon the successful completion of the Conditional Use application, the proposed excavation expansion will be found consistent and permitted per the requirements of the LDC and its design and development standards. Future Land Use Element Provisions Policy 5.4: New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004, as amended). The A-MHO-RSLAO District allows commercial excavations. The application and Conceptual Site Plan identifies the required elements for a Conditional Use, as required by the LDC and Future Land Use Element Provisions. 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 expansion site will be developed as a unified excavation with the existing commercial excavation site. The existing ingress/egress point, located along Edwards Grove Road, will remain for and used for direct access to both properties. Additionally, internal access/circulation will be provided throughout the excavation operation as needed. 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 applicant has planned for the provision of internal circulation provided within the proposed Lake Excavation Area of the Conceptual Site Plan. Construction drawings for the companion Commercial Excavation Permit will identify these circulation routes in detail. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) Stewart Mining CU – PL20190000808 Attachment “C” – Evaluation Criteria December 20, 2019 www.davidsonengineering.com Policy 7.3 All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. Interconnections to the property to the east are proposed, to achieve the unified excavation. 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. As this is a commercial excavation operation, the site will not be open to the public. Sidewalks/pathways will be provided only as necessary for employees within the site and as required by the LDC. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) LESS AND EXCEPT THE EAST 30 FEET QUIT CLAIM DEED (O.R. BOOK 156, PAGE 375) EASEMENT FOR CANALS AND DRAINAGE (O.R. BOOK 1141, PAGE 2089) EASEMENT FOR CANALS AND DRAINAGE (O.R. BOOK 1141, PAGE 2089) EASEMENT FOR CANALS AND DRAINAGE (O.R. BOOK 1141, PAGE 2089) EASEMENT FOR CANALS AND DRAINAGE (O.R. BOOK 1141, PAGE 2089) 50' UTILITY EASEMENT (O.R. BOOK 3909, PAGE 2831) 50' UTILITY EASEMENT (O.R. BOOK 3974, PAGE 1369) 30' WIDE PRIMARY ACCESS EASEMENT FOR ROAD (O.R. BOOK 1141, PAGE 2093)EDWARDS GROVE ROAD5,780 FEET± TO S.R. 82LAMM ROAD7,327 FEET± TO S.R. 8210' TYPE A LANDSCAPE BUFFER 50' EXCAVATION SETBACK 20' TYPE D LANDSCAPE BUFFER 10' TYPE A LANDSCAPE BUFFER ZONING: A-MHO-RLSAO LAND USE: EXISTING AG LAND AND CITRUS OPERATION ZONING: A-MHO-RLSAO LAND USE: EXISTING AG LAND AND CITRUS OPERATION ZONING: A-MHO-RLSAO LAND USE: EXISTING AG LAND AND CITRUS OPERATION ZONING: A-MHO-RLSAO LAND USE: EXISTING AG LAND AND CITRUS OPERATION 50' EXCAVATION SETBACK 10' TYPE A LANDSCAPE BUFFER 10' TYPE A LANDSCAPE BUFFER 50' EXCAVATION SETBACK ZONING: A-MHO-RLSAO LAND USE: EXISTING AG LAND/FARMLAND ZONING: A-MHO-RLSAO LAND USE: UNDEVELOPED AND EXISTING AG LAND/FARMLAND 50' EXCAVATION SETBACK EXISTING PROPERTY LINE LAKE EXCAVATION LIMITS ZONING: A-MHO-RLSAO LAND USE: EXISTING AG LAND AND CITRUS OPERATION EXISTING SCALE HOUSE EXISTING PROCESSING PLANT EXISTING EMPLOYEE PARKING AREA PROPOSED LAKE EXCAVATION / DEVELOPMENT AREA ± 422.50 ACRES EXISTING REFUSE AREA CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE CIRCULATION CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE CIRCULATION CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE CIRCULATION EXISTING SITE ACCESS POINT 200' RIGHT OF WAY RESERVATION N CURRENT ZONING:A-MHO-RSLAO / CONDITIONAL USE (RESOLUTION 03-332) PROPOSED ZONING:A-MHO-RSLAO / CONDITIONAL USE (CU) CURRENT LAND USE:AGRICULTURAL / COMMERCIAL EXCAVATION FUTURE LAND USE:AGRICULTURAL / RURAL MIXED USE DISTRICT / RLSA PLANNING NOTES: ROW RESERVATION & EASEMENTS PERIMETER BUFFERS ± 4.93 AC. ± 421.58 AC. LAND USE SUMMARY ACRES % OF SITE ± 1.09% ± 93.54%DEVELOPMENT / EXCAVATION AREA 1.THIS CONDITIONAL USE AND CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN REPRESENTS THE EXISTING LIMITS AND PROPOSED EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING COMMERCIAL EXCAVATION OPERATION. 2.PER SEC. 22-112 WHERE AN EXCAVATION CROSSES COMMON PARCEL OR PROPERTY LINES, THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS ARE EXEMPT AT THE CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY LINES. 3.PER THE FLUCCS PREPARED AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION, NO NATIVE PRESERVATION IS REQUIRED. 4.A LITTORAL SHELF PLANTING AREA TO COMMENCE DURING THE RECLAMATION PHASE OF THE PROJECT SHALL BE SHOWN ON THE EXCAVATION PERMIT FOR THIS PETITION AND SHALL MEET THE CURRENT STANDARDS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AT TIME OF SUBMITTAL OF THE COMMERCIAL EXCAVATION PERMIT.  GENERAL NOTES: =EXCAVATION AREA =PROPERTY BOUNDARY 4365 Radio Road, Suite 201 Naples, Florida 34104 P: 239.434.6060 Company Cert. of Authorization No. 00009496 MASTER CONCEPT PLAN SHEET NO: REVISIONS DATEREV.DESCRIPTION USE CU APPLICATION SUBMITTAL11/21/2019 CC RAI COMMENTS02/07/2020 CC RAI COMMENTS05/04/2020 ± 24.19 AC.± 5.37% TOTAL SITE AREA 100%± 450.70 AC. CC RAI COMMENTS07/22/2020 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) Stewart Mining CU – PL20190000808 Attachment “D” – Conditions of Approval September 23, 2020 www.davidsonengineering.com PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ATTACHMENT “D” 1. The petitioner shall obtain a South Florida Water Management District Agricultural Surface Water Management Permit or permit modification for this site, if applicable. 2. The site shall be cleared of all exotic vegetation and maintained exotic-free in perpetuity. 3. Material hauling activities are permitted from 5:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. 4. The excavation shall be contained by a berm constructed to the height of the 100-year flood elevation. Unless the berm contains adequate clay content to slow the flow of water (as determined by the Collier County Transportation Engineering Division), the berm shall contain a membrane impervious to water. 5. The site shall be limited to a maximum of 49 pm peak hour, two-way trips based on the use codes in the ITE Manual on trip generation rates in effect at time of application for SDP/SDPA or subdivision plat approval, or based on an alternate methodology accepted by staff at time of application for SDP/SDPA in accordance with the County’s Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) guidelines in Resolution No. 2006-299, as it may be amended. 6. Evidence of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) accepted mitigation for impacts to panthers, woodstorks, Florida black bear and other listed species will be required prior to excavation permit approval, if applicable. 7. A littoral shelf planting area to commence during the reclamation phase of the project shall be shown on the excavation permit for this petition and shall meet the current standards of the Land Development Code at time of submittal of the Commercial Excavation Permit. 8. Prior to any vehicular use of the site, the owner shall post two (2) signs along the entry drive, clearly visible to vehicles entering and leaving the site, providing information regarding potential panther presence and notifying drivers of the need to use caution. Sign wording, placement and size will be subject to review and approval by the Collier County Environmental Staff. The owner shall submit, and receive approval, of the proposed signage in conjunction with the Commercial Excavation Application or other local development order as may be required, which may allow vehicular use of the site. 9. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. 10. 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 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) Stewart Mining CU – PL20190000808 Attachment “D” – Conditions of Approval September 23, 2020 www.davidsonengineering.com 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. 11. The westernmost 200 feet of the parcel shall be reserved for right-of-way, for the purpose of the future Little League Road extension. 12. The petitioner shall be responsible for maintenance of Edwards Grove Road, from State Road 82 to the subject property line, for the duration of the mining operation. Edwards Grove Road shall be paved a minimum of 22 feet in width and a depth of 1.5 inches of asphalt or asphalt millings. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 4365 Radio Road • Suite 201 • Naples, FL 34104 • P: 239.434.6060 • www.davidsonengineering.com D esigning E xcellence Civil Engineering • Planning • Permitting Trip Generation Analysis Conditional Use Application #PL20190000808 Stewart Mining Collier County, FL PREPARED BY: Davidson Engineering, Inc. 4365 Radio Road, Suite 201 Naples, Florida 34104 Methodology Fee = $500 Small Scale Study = $0 December 3, 2019 _________________________________________________ Carl Thrushman, P.E. License No. 86499 Company ID No. 9496 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) Table of Contents Introduction and Methodology ..................................................................................................................................2 Existing Trip Generation .............................................................................................................................................3 Proposed Trip Generation ..........................................................................................................................................3 Net New Trip Generation ...........................................................................................................................................4 Net New Trip Distribution and Assignment ................................................................................................................4 Net New Concurrency Analysis ..................................................................................................................................5 Net New Significance Test ..........................................................................................................................................6 Proposed Operational and Turn-Lane Analysis ..........................................................................................................7 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................................9 Appendix A: Traffic Analysis Summary prepared for the Conditional Use application CU-2002-AR-3537 Appendix B: Methodology Meeting Notes 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 2 Introduction and Methodology Stewart Mining is an existing 218.97-acre rock quarry site located at 2315 Edwards Grove Road, Immokalee, Collier County. More specifically, the site is located in the southwest quadrant of SR-82 and SR-29; approximately one mile south of SR-29. The existing quarry is proposing to expand their rock/sand supply by adding the 231.73-acre parcel to the immediate west. The new site is currently zoned Agriculture and used as a produce farm. Refer to Figure 1 below for the project location. The SIC associated with this project is 1442- Mining construction sand and gravel. This document entails a “Small Scale Study” T.I.S. The overall analysis is based on the previously approved Traffic Analysis Summary (Appendix A) prepared for the previously approved Conditional Use application CU-2002-AR-3537. The site’s operational parameters have been updated herein. Also, per coordination with County zoning staff, the methodology notes from PL20170003512 are to be carried forward to this C.U. application- PL20190000808. The existing and proposed rock quarry will continue to use the single existing access point on SR-82. Concurrency will be analyzed for both SR-82 and SR-29 in the peak hour, peak direction to ensure the net new trips will not create an adverse effect on the adjacent roadways. The total proposed trips will be evaluated for operational and turn-lane analysis. Figure 1: Project Location Exist. Site Prop. Expansion Access Intersection 9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 178Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road 3 Existing Trip Generation The existing vested trips for the quarry were previously reviewed and approved by Collier County under CU-2002-AR-3537. The original calculations are provided in Appendix A. Existing Trip Generation: Truck Traffic (Average Daily) = 207 two-way trips Truck Traffic (Peak Hour) = 23 two-way trips [12 enter; 12 exit] Employee Traffic (Average Daily) = 10 two-way trips Employee Traffic (AM Peak Hour) = 5 enter; 0 exit Employee Traffic (PM Peak Hour) = 0 enter; 5 exit Proposed Trip Generation The unique functionality of the development reveals that only truck traffic enters and exits the site at a 1:1 ratio during site specific hauling hours; whereas, employee traffic only enters the site during the A.M. and only exits the site during the P.M. It is important to note that only the site-specific “P.M. peak hours” overlap with the County’s established peak hours of 4-6 p.m. The site’s peak hours are based on business records/sales tickets. The proposed trips will be analyzed for operational and turn-lane maneuvers. Proposed Site Parameters: Estimated Excavated Volume Per Year = 1,630,000 cy Truck Volume = 16 cy Number of Employees = 15 Hauling Hours = 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. per day for 250 days per year Site Specific Peak Hours = 9-11 a.m. and 3-5 p.m. Proposed Trip Generation: Truck Traffic (Average Daily) = 1,630,000 cy / 250 days per year / 16 cy per truck = 408 two-way trips per day Truck Traffic (Peak Hour) = 34 two-way trips per hour [17 enter; 17 exit] Employee Traffic (Average Daily) = 30 two-way trips per day Employee Traffic (AM Peak Hour) = 15 enter; 0 exit Employee Traffic (PM Peak Hour) = 0 enter; 15 exit 9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 179Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road 4 Net New Trip Generation The net new trips will be analyzed for concurrency since the existing trips were previously vested for concurrency with the approval of C.U. PL20190000808. Net New Trip Generation: Total Traffic (Average Daily) = 438 proposed trips – 207 existing trips = 231 trips per day Truck Traffic (Peak Hour) = 11 two-way trips [6 enter; 6 exit] Employee Traffic (Average Daily) = 20 two-way trips Employee Traffic (AM Peak Hour) = 10 enter; 0 exit Employee Traffic (PM Peak Hour) = 0 enter; 10 exit Net New Trip Distribution and Assignment Traffic distribution and assignment is based on a recent site evaluation of traffic circulation. The table below and figure on the following page show the net new peak hour traffic distribution analyzed for concurrency and roadway significance test. Table 1: Net New Peak Hour Traffic Distribution Peak Hour, One-way Trips (Enter) Peak Hour, One-way Trips (Exit) Net New Peak Hour, Two-way Trips Total* 60% South on SR-82 40% North on SR-29 Total* 60% North on SR-82 40% South on SR-29 AM Peak Hour 21 16 10 6 11 7 4 PM Peak Hour 21 11 7 4 16 10 6 *Truck traffic enters and exits the site at a 1:1 ratio during working hours; whereas, employee traffic only enters the site during the a.m. and only exits the site during the p.m. (11 truck two-way trips + 10 employee one-way trips = 21 vph). 9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 180Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road 5 Figure 2: Net New Peak Hour Traffic Distribution Net New Concurrency Analysis Per Collier County’s TIS guidelines, conditional use applications are required to calculate the traffic growth rate from the current 2019 AUIR data plus background growth to the 5-year horizon. Table 2, on the follow page, reveals this calculation for both Links 86.0 and 88.0. The peak direction for both links, per 2019 AUIR, is south. According to Collier County’s 2019 AUIR, SR-82 is expected to be deficient in the year 2023. SR-29 (40%) AM Enter (North): 6 AM Exit (South): 4 PM Enter (North): 4 PM Exit (South): 6 SR-82 (60%) AM Enter (South): 10 AM Exit (North): 7 PM Enter (South): 7 PM Exit (North): 10 9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 181Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road 6 Table 2: 5-year Horizon Projected Growth Rate (Based on Collier County Historical AUIR Data) Link From To Peak Hour, Peak Direction (South) Volume Actual Growth Rate Min. Growth Rate¹ 2024 Pk Hr, Pk Dir Growth Vol. 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 86.0 (SR-29) CR-29A North SR-82 510 560 620 620 630 620 4.1 2.0 829 88.0 (SR-82) Lee County Line SR-29 570 690 710 650 740 750 5.9 2.0 1,003 1 The growth rate is based on the greater of 2.0% or Actual Calculated Growth Rate, as required by Collier County's TIS Guidelines. Table 3 reveals that Link 86.0 (SR-29) remains within capacity to the 5-year horizon plus site generated trips. It also reveals that Link 88.0 (SR-82) is not within capacity, regardless of site generated trips. However, the 2019 AUIR indicates state funds have been issued for widening the roadway during the fiscal year 2020 which will increase the service capacity. Table 3: Net New Peak Hour, Peak Direction LOS Link Analysis Link From To Peak Hour, Peak Direction (South) Traffic Service Volume* Within Capacity? 2024 Growth Volume Project Traffic (Southbound) 2024 Volume (Project + Growth Volume) 86.0 (SR-29) CR-29A North SR-82 829 6 835 850 Yes 88.0 (SR-82) Lee County Line SR-29 1,003 10 1,013 850 No *Link 88.0 widening project during fiscal year 2020. Net New Significance Test As shown in Table 4 the adjacent concurrency links are not found to be significantly impacted during the by the net new trips during the peak hour. The net new trips generated by the development will have a maximum of only 1.18% impact on SR-82 (southbound). 9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 182Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road 7 Table 4: Net New Peak Hour, Peak Direction Significance Test Link From To Lanes Existing LOS 2019 Service Volume Network Peak Direction Net New Peak Hour Trips % Impact SR-29 CR-29A North SR-82 2-Undivided C 850 South 6 0.70 SR-82 Lee County Line SR-29 2-Undivided C 850 South 10 1.18 Proposed Operational and Turn-Lane Analysis As previously mentioned, the expansion development will access the site via the existing Edwards Grove Road connection to SR-82. There are two existing turn-lanes on SR-82: northbound and southbound. Both turn-lanes are ±450 linear feet with an additional 50-foot taper. Per the previously established distribution split, the total proposed trips anticipated to utilize the existing turn-lanes are presented in Table 5 below and Figure 3 on the following page. Proposed Trip Generation: Truck Traffic (AM Peak Hour) = 17 enter; 17 exit Truck Traffic (PM Peak Hour) = 17 enter; 17 exit Employee Traffic (AM Peak Hour) = 15 enter; 0 exit Employee Traffic (PM Peak Hour) = 0 enter; 15 exit Table 5: Operational Analysis at Existing Turn-Lanes Proposed Peak Hour, One-way Trips (Enter) Total 60% South on SR-82 40% North on SR-29 AM Peak Hour 32 19 13 PM Peak Hour 17 10 7 9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 183Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road 8 Figure 3: Operational Analysis at Existing Turn-Lanes The surrounding lands are also zoned Agriculture and used as produce farms, so it is assumed the potential operational movements generated by surrounding developments are minimal. Therefore, the existing turn-lanes will continue to meet/exceed the minimum requirements for turn-lane construction per Collier County Administrative Code AC-11-4 and FDOT guidelines. No right-of-way improvements are required or proposed at this time. SR-29 (40%) AM Enter: 13 trips PM Enter: 7 trips SR-82 (60%) AM Enter: 19 trips PM Enter: 10 trips 9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 184Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road 9 Conclusion The existing quarry is proposing to expand their rock/sand supply by adding the 231.73-acre parcel to the immediate west. The development will continue to use the single existing access point on SR-82. The proposed expansion will not create any adverse effects on the surrounding roadways. The existing turn-lanes on SR-82 at the project location exceed the minimum length requirements for the proposed trips. The project’s total proposed peak hour, two-way, trips will be held to a maximum trip cap of 49 vph. 9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 185Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road 10 Appendix A Traffic Analysis Summary prepared for the Conditional Use application CU-2002-AR-3537 9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 186Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Stewart Earth Mining Traffic Analysis Summary December 20, 2002 Revised-May 10, 2003 Introduction Stewart Earth Mining is a proposed commercial excavation of a 203 acre lake located approximately 1.25 miles southwest of the intersection of S.R. 29 and S.R. 82 Northwest of Immokalee. The trucks entering and leaving the proposed excavation will use an existing agricultural road which currently serves the site (the site is an existing citrus grove). The existing road intersects with S.R. 82 approximately 1 mile north of the site. Approximately 80% of the truck traffic hauling from the fill pit will travel west on S.R. 82 and the other 20% will travel east on S.R. 82 to S.R. 29 and go south. This assignment was determined by observation of truck trips at the driveway of a fill pit located in Hendry County approximately 5 miles west of the subject driveway. Trip Generation Conditions Estimated Excavated Volume Per Year = 930,000 C.Y. Truck Volume = 18 C.Y. Hours of Operation = 9 hours per day for 250 days per year Generation: Truck Traffic 930,000 C.Y./ 250 Day per Year / 9 Hours per Day / 18 C.Y. Yards per Truck Peak Hour = 23 Two-Way Trips Per Hour ADF = 207 Two-Way Trips Per Day Employee and service Peak hour one way trips 7 to 8 am and 4 to 5 pm 5 One Way Trips Per Peak Hour Total Trips Peak Hour 22 AM Peak Hour Trips Entering 17 AM Peak Hour Trips Exiting 17 PM Peak Hour Trips Exiting 22 PM Peak Hour Trips Exiting ADF 217 Two Way Trips Per Day Conclusion Because of the nature of the proposed truck traffic we expect turn lanes to be required. The cost for constructing these turn lanes will be provided by the owner. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 11 Appendix B Methodology Meeting Notes 9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 188Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road 4365 Radio Road  ∙  Suite 201  ∙ Naples, FL 34104  ∙  P: (239) 434.6060  ∙  F: (239) 434‐6084    1990 Main Street  ∙  Suite 750  ∙  Sarasota, FL 34236  ∙  P: (941) 309‐5180    Civil Engineering   •   Planning   •   Permitting  www.davidsonengineering.com               Methodology Notes Review    Stewart Mining  Collier County, FL  Condition Use Application #PL20170003512                        PREPARED BY:  Davidson Engineering, Inc.  4365 Radio Road, Suite 201  Naples, Florida 34104                        January 5, 2018                    9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) STEWART MINING METHODOLOGY NOTES Date: 1-5-2018 Location: Via email People Attending: 1) Stephen Baluch, PE; CC Transportation Engineering Review 239-252-2361 2) Krystle Weems, Engineer, Davidson Engineering 239-434-6060 Study Preparer: Preparer’s Name and Title: Krystle Weems, Engineer Organization: Davidson Engineering, Inc Address & Telephone Number: 4365 Radio Road, Suite 201, Naples, Florida 34104 Reviewer(s): Reviewer’s Name & Title: Stephen Baluch, PE; CC Transportation Engineering Review Collier County Transportation Planning Department Applicant: Applicant’s Name: Tippen Bay Properties, LLLP Address: PO Box 2357, LaBelle, Florida Proposed Development: Name: Stewart Mining Location: 2315 Edwards Grove Road, Immokalee (See location map next page) Land Use Type: Mining quarry/commercial excavation ITE Code #: N/A; Traffic generation based on previously prepared TIS (Exhibit A) and CU-2002-AR-3537 Conditions (Exhibit B) for truck and employee traffic assumptions. Description: Existing ±203-acre mining quarry to be expanded by ±231.8 acres to increase excavation material supply. No additional truck trips/employees/or working hours are proposed. Zoning Existing: A-MHO-RLSAO Study Type: Small Scale TIS Minor TIS Major TIS Study Area: Concurrency Analysis: 2017 AUIR Link 86.0 - SR-29 (CR-29A North to SR-82) and Link 88.0 – SR-82 (Lee County Line to SR-29) Operational Roadways: SR-82 and Edwards Grove Road feature existing ±500’ left and right turn lanes on SR-82 Horizon Year(s): 2018 Analysis Time Period(s): Weekday, AM, and PM traffic 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) Source of Trip Generation Rates: N/A; Traffic generation based on previously prepared TIS and CU-2002-AR-3537 Conditions for truck and employee traffic assumptions. Horizon Year Roadway Network Improvements: No improvements listed for 2018-2019 on SR-82 near the project intersection. Methodology & Assumptions: Site-trip generation: Total Two-way Weekday = 217 trips (Truck: 207; Employee: 10) See attached Appendix A for original traffic calculations. Two-way AM = 39 trips (Enter: 22; Exit: 17) See attached Appendix A for original traffic calculations. Two-way PM = 39 trips (Enter: 17; Exit: 22) See attached Appendix A for original traffic calculations. Trip distribution method: 80% west on SR-82 and 20% East on SR-82 continuing South on SR-29. Traffic growth rate: 2017 AUIR + Background Growth to 5-year Horizon. Turn-Lane Analysis: There are existing ±500’ left and right turn lanes at the intersection of SR-82 and Edwards Grove Road. Exist. Site Prop.  Expansion  9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) Special Features: (from preliminary study or prior experience) None. 20%East/South  AM In‐ 4 trips  AM Out‐ 3 trips  PM In‐ 3 trips  PM Out‐ 4 trips 80% West  AM In‐ 18 trips  AM Out‐ 14 trips  PM In‐ 14 trips  PM Out‐18 trips  9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) Stewart Earth Mining Traffic Analysis Summary December 20, 2002 Revised-May 10, 2003 Introduction Stewart Earth Mining is a proposed commercial excavation of a 203-acre lake located approximately 1.25 miles southwest of the intersection of S.R. 29 and S.R. 82 Northwest of Immokalee. The trucks entering and leaving the proposed excavation will use an existing agricultural road which currently serves the site (the site is an existing citrus grove). The existing road intersects with S.R. 82 approximately 1 mile north of the site. Approximately 80% of the truck traffic hauling from the fill pit will travel west on S.R. 82 and the other 20% will travel east on S.R. 82 to S.R. 29 and go south. This assignment was determined by observation of truck trips at the driveway of a fill pit located in Hendry County approximately 5 miles west of the subject driveway. Trip Generation Conditions Estimated Excavated Volume Per Year = 930,000 C.Y. Truck Volume = 18 C.Y. Hours of Operation = 9 hours per day for 250 days per year Generation: Truck Traffic 930,000 C.Y./ 250 Day per Year / 9 Hours per Day / 18 C.Y. Yards per Truck Peak Hour = 23 Two-Way Trips Per Hour ADF = 207 Two-Way Trips Per Day Employee and service Peak hour one-way trips 7 to 8 am and 4 to 5 pm 5 One Way Trips Per Peak Hour Total Trips Peak Hour 22 AM Peak Hour Trips Entering 17 AM Peak Hour Trips Exiting 17 PM Peak Hour Trips Exiting 22 PM Peak Hour Trips Exiting ADF 217 Two Way Trips Per Day Conclusion Because of the nature of the proposed truck traffic we expect turn lanes to be required. The cost for constructing these turn lanes will be provided by the owner. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) RESOLUTION NO A RESOLUTION PROVIDINGFOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CONDITIONAL USE I FOR EARTHMINING IN THE A MHO RURAL AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT WITH MOBILE HOME OVERLAY PURSUANT TO SECTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTIONS AND TOWNSHIP SOUTH RANGE EAST COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA WHEREAS the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter Laws of Florida and Chapter Florida Statutes has conferred on Collier County the power to establish coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public and WHEREAS the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code Ordinance No which includes a Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance establishing regulations for the zoning ofparticular geographic divisions of the County among which isthe granting of Conditional Uses and WHEREAS the Collier County Planning Commission being the duly appointed and constituted planning board for the area hereby affected has held a public hearing after notice as in said regulations made and provided andhas considered the advisability of Conditional Use of Section of the Collier County Land Development Code for earthmining inan A MHO Rural Agricultural Zoning District with Mobile Home Overlay on the property hereinafter described and has found as amatter of fact Exhibit A that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and inaccordance with Subsection of the Land Development Code tor the Collier County Planning Commission and WHEREAS all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard bythis Board in a public meeting assembled and the Board having considered all matters presented NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA that The petition filed by Jeff Davidson P E of Davidson Engineering Inc representing Stewart Mining Industries Inc with respect to the property hereinafter described as Exhibit B which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) ti be and the same is hereby approved for Conditional Use I ot Section of the Collier County Land Development Code in an A MHO Rural Agricultural Zoning District with Mobile Home Overlay for earthmining inaccordance with the Conceptual Master Plan Exhibit Cand subject to the following conditions Exhibit D which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein BEIT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution berecorded in the minutes of this Board This Resolution adopted after motion second and super majority vote Done this Zn lday ofBOAR OF NING COLLIE UNTY BY TOM HENNING CHAIRM ATTEST jDWlyHT E BROCK CLERK Atti IS ChlfrIIIJI S sfan lyre ll Approveo asJo Form andLegalSufficiencyb I A tL rnMal orMStudent Assistant County Attorney CU AR FRIsp 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) i ru FINDINGS OF FACT BY COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION FOR CU AR The following facts are found Subsection of the Land Development Code authorizes the conditional use Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and will notadversely affect other property or uses in the same districtorneighborhoodbecauseofAConsistencywiththeLandDevelopmentCodeandGrowthManagement Plan Yes f No B Ingress and egress toproperty and proposed structures thereon with particular reference toautomotive and pedestrian safety and convenience traffic flowandcontrolandaccessincaseoffireorcatastropheAdequateingressegressXYesNoCAffectsneighboringproperties inrelation to noiseglare economic or odor effects No affect or Affect mitigated by Affect cannot bemitigated D Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district Compatible use within district Yes V No Based on the above findings this conditional use should with stipulations copy attached should not be recommended for approval DATE y CHArRMAN iCjCTEXHIBITAr 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) CU AR DESCRIPTION as provided by client A tract of land located In the Southeast quarter of Section Township South Range and the Northeast quarter Section Township South Range East Collier County FI further described os follows to wit Beginning at the Northeast corner of Section Township South Range East thence S degrees West Basis for bearing assumed along the East line of said Section a dlstc of feet to a concrete monument being the East quarter comer of SectIon thence degrees West along the South line of the Northeast quarter a distance of fthence North degrees West a distance of feet thence South degrees West a distance of feet thence North degrees West a distance of f to apoint on the East West quarter quarter line of th e outheast quarter of Section Towr South Range East thence North degrees East along sold quarter quarter IIn distance of feet to a concrete monument being the East quarter quarter corner of so Southeast thence South degrees West olong the East line of SectIon a dlst of feet to the Point of Beginning LESS AND EXCEPT from sold tract the East feet thereof EXHIBIT B 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) l zfrCAeltiii URAL ZlNNG h lllllllllllillllIIIIraIIIPIIIIPIIIIIII I I II IINI II I I I I rF I I I IIIIIIIIIIIigs I I i l i U C IIfli Jol I I I eo I JI IaHi I I II IilIJhlnjiiif lil e ItikStmIiliiiirJrjIliffIm J IIiifj JiIrJlrfJfIrbiHd tg nJi r i ro alJ f t fr II IrUJ gisCIaJ o Oni t iItirfiITj l ftIJ a iiz iii p JtiJJf g I r i I l l J r J lII i Ill t F IntI J I il r i I j l l II I F j ft j t I if i i fl I rt I il i t I I i jt I t i Q f rf r J t CI f I i l r t i i el iIS f i Iiiiiiilu 9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 198Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road i CU AR CONDITIONS The Petitioner shall obtain a South Florida Water Management District Agricultural Surface Water Management Permit or permit modification for this site if applicable The site shall be cleared of all exotic vegetation and maintained exotic free in perpetuity The petitioner shall pave the access road from State Road to the subject property line prior to commencement of earthmining operations The pavement shall bea minimum of feet in width and a depth of inches of asphalt or asphalt millings The petitioner shall be responsible for maintenance of the access road for the duration of the operation Turn lanes on SR westbound left in eastbound right in shall be provided prior to commencement of earthrnining operations Excavation activities are permitted from AM until PM Monday through Saturday The excavation shall becontained by a berm constructed to the height of the year flood elevation Unless the berm contains adequate clay content to slow the flow of water as determined by the Collicr County Engineering Services Department the berm shall contain a membrane impervious to water A landscaped berm feet in height shall be constructed adjacent to parcels zoned residential within months of the adjacent parcel being rezoned The easternmost feet of the parcel shall be reserved for right of way and shall bedeeded to Collier County at no cost to Collier County within days of receipt of notification by the Collier County Transportation Services Department that the property is needed for the purpose of providing a right of way connection from Westclox Road to State Road EXHIBIT D 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 224Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road 9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 225Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road ENVIRONMENTAL DATA REPORT EDWARDS GROVE ROAD SAND MINE, WEST EXPANSION CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION #CU-PL20170003512 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Submitted to: COLLIER COUNTY Growth Management Department Development Review Division Development Services Building 2800 Horseshoe Drive N Naples, FL 34104 Prepared for: 2875 Jupiter Park Drive, Suite 1100 Jupiter, FL 33458 Prepared by: 3663 Lake Center Drive Mount Dora, FL 32757 November 2019 Updated March 2020 20193253.001A/02 | MOU19R103395 Rev 1 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 2.0 OVERALL PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.0 PROJECT AREA CONDITIONS 3.1 Land Use and Cover Types 3.2 Native Vegetation 3.3 Wetlands and Other Surface Waters 3.4 Listed Species 3.4.1 Listed Plants 3.4.2 Listed Wildlife 4.0 RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA 5.0 SOILS AND GROUNDWATER QUALITY LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Project Location Map Figure 2: Existing Land Use Map Figure 3: 1968 Aerial Image Figure 4: Wood Stork Colony Location Map Figure 5: USFWS Florida Panther Focus Area Map Figure 6: Florida Panther Telemetry Map Figure 7: Black Bear Range Map Figure 8: Listed Species Survey Map Figure 9: USFWS Caracara Nesting/Sightings Map LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Bill Newlon’s Resume Attachment 2: Stormwater Management Calculations Attachment 3: FNAI Biodiversity Matrix Measures Attachment 4: Eastern Indigo Snake Standard Protection Attachment 5: Soils and Water Quality Sampling Results 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 3 1.0 INTRODUCTION The following environmental data was prepared to meet the requirements of Section 3.08.00 of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) in association with a proposed mining expansion at the Edwards Grove Road Sand Mine (the project). The information was requested on July 25, 2018 by the Collier County Development Review Division in association with Conditional Use (CU) application No. CU-PL20170003512. An environmental assessment was originally conducted by Kleinfelder on August 23, 2017 for the project. This field assessment was updated on March 3, 2020 in response to comments, dated February 14, 2020, received from Collier County Growth Management Department. The original environmental assessment report has been updated in accordance with the recent field activities as requested. The environmental data herein was prepared by Bill Newlon, a Senior Environmental Scientist with Kleinfelder. Pursuant to Section 3.08.00.A.2., the minimum academic credentials and experience required in association with the preparation of the environmental data submittal requirements include a Bachelor’s degree or higher in one of the biological sciences and at least two years of ecological or biological professional experience in the state of Florida. Mr. Newlon meets these requirements with Bachelor and Master of Science degrees in wildlife biology and over 18 years of experience with wetlands, listed species, native vegetation, and natural resource management in Florida. A resume for Mr. Newlon documenting these academic credentials and experience has been included with this report as Attachment 1. 2.0 OVERALL PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project involves a westward expansion of the existing 219.0 acre Edwards Grove Road Sand Mine and CU boundary, which will add 231.7 acres of land to the project area resulting in a total CU area of 450.7 acres (Figure 1). Of the 219.0 acres associated with the existing mine, 183.70 acres have previously been authorized for mining, and an additional 220.69 acres are being proposed for mining in association with the 231.7 acre expansion. The existing sand mine and proposed expansion area are located approximately 1.25 miles southwest of the intersection of State Road 29 and State Road 82, northwest of Immokalee, in Sections 18 and 19, Township 46 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida (Figure 1). Environmental impacts associated with the project are expected to be minimal because the entire project consists of land which was historically converted to citrus grove, and which continues to be managed and maintained as an active citrus operation to the west and mined to the east. No wetlands, native plants or communities, or listed species of plants or wildlife will be impacted. Best Management Practices, Erosion Control Measures, and Pollution Prevention Plan are in effect for the existing permit area and will continue to 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 4 be used during mining and reclamation in the expansion area to provide safeguards to public health, safety and welfare, and protect undisturbed natural resources. Existing water use on the project site involves a network of ditches with risers and corrugated pipes used to manipulate water levels as needed for citrus production. Water use for the proposed expansion will be the same as at the existing mining area where use is associated with the transport and processing of sand materials. Water associated with transport is used as a medium to pump dredged sand material through above ground pipes to the existing plant facility for processing. Water associated with processing is used to wash and remove undesirable material from the sand. Water used for transport and processing is recirculated back to the mine pit. No dewatering occurs in association with the mining operation and all stormwater runoff is and will be retained within the mine pit. Much of the existing mining and expansion areas are mapped as being within the 100-year flood zone. Because mining creates additional flood storage, onsite or offsite flooding resulting from project related impacts to mapped flood zone areas (Zone AH) is not anticipated. The mine pit will have sufficient storage to retain the 25 year – 72 hour design storm both during and after mining. A copy of the stormwater management plan approved in association with Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) No. MMR_228414-005 which depicts flood zone mapping and demonstrates stormwater capacity is provided as Attachment 2. ERP No. MMR_228414-005 was approved by the FDEP and subsequently withdrawn by the permittee in association with a corporate business decision. The stormwater management plan has been reviewed and approved in association with the modified permit, and a request to reissue this permit was recently submitted to the FDEP. 3.0 PROJECT AREA CONDITIONS An environmental site assessment to determine land use and cover types, and the presence of or potential for native vegetation, wetlands, and listed species within the proposed 450.7 acre CU area (Figure 1), which includes the existing mining (219.0 acres) and proposed mining expansion (231.7 acres) areas was conducted by Kleinfelder on August 23, 2017. An updated assessment for the mining expansion area was conducted on March 3, 2020. The findings of these assessments are provided as follows. 3.1 Land Use and Cover Types Existing land use types within the CU area were mapped over aerial imagery (2016) utilizing the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS, FDOT 1999) (Figure 2). The CU area is found in a rural setting and consists primarily of existing sand mining and citrus operations. Pursuant to a review of historic imagery from 1968 (Figure 3), the entire CU area had been converted to a citrus grove over 50 years ago. Activities in the existing mining area to the east were initiated in 2006. Adjoining land uses currently include agriculture in all directions. The land use and cover types were unchanged between the 2017 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 5 and 2020 environmental assessments. Four FLUCFCS land use types in total were identified in the CU area, as detailed below: 160 Extraction (219.0 acres, 48.6%) The 219.0 acre eastern half of the CU area has been permitted as a sand mine, almost all of which has been disturbed by mining related activities. Areas within this land use area generally consist of an active mine pit with a wet-dredging operation, processing and storage areas, haul roads, perimeter berms, transition areas which have been disturbed by pre-mining clearing and grading, and setbacks. 221 Citrus Groves (220.6 acres, 48.9%) The western half of the CU area where the mining expansion is proposed consists of an actively maintained citrus grove operation. Numerous features such as primitive roads and pump houses are associated with the grove. Grove areas are regularly maintained and cleared of colonizing vegetation. Vegetative cover within the citrus grove was dominated by planted orange trees (Citrus spp.). Ground cover consisted of a variety of ruderal species such as Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), crowfootgrass (Dactyloctenium aegyptium), dogfennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), natalgrass (Melinis repens), common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), wild balsam apple (Momordica charantia), guineagrass (Panicum maximum), and Caesar-weed (Urena lobata). A low number (<25) of young, solitary cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto) trees were observed, mostly along the western boundary. 513 Man-Made Ditches (10.2 acres, 2.3%) A network of ditches was observed throughout the citrus grove in the western half of the CU area. These ditches appear to be used for water management purposes in association with the citrus grove. Ditches varied in size from approximately 2 to 20 feet in width. Ditches between grove sections were approximately 5-10 feet wide and a perimeter ditch along the western boundary was approximately 15-20 feet wide. Numerous risers and corrugated pipes connected grove ditches onsite, but no offsite surface water connectivity was identified during the site investigation. Small ditches approximately 2 feet in width were also present in between individual rows which appeared to assist with drainage. These ditches, however, had no indicators of regular hydrology, and as such, were included as part of the citrus grove instead of being mapped out separately. A shrub layer of colonial species was present along ditch banks which included eastern false-willow (Baccharis halimifolia), southern willow (Salix 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 6 caroliniana), and Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius). Ground cover along the ditch banks was dominated by lantana (Lantana camara), guineagrass, primrose willow (Ludwigia peruviana), and Caesar-weed while a dense, overgrown layer of primrose willow was observed within the ditch interiors. Little to no standing water was observed in the ditches at the time of the field investigation. 740 Disturbed Land (0.9 acres, 0.2%) A disturbed area of land was located within the north-central part of the site, and the northeastern portion of the expansion area. This area appeared to be a staging, storage, and parking area for the citrus operation. Vegetation where present consisted of ruderal ground cover species such as beggar-ticks (Bidens pilosa), Bermuda grass, yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus), natalgrass, guineagrass, smutgrass (Sporobolus indicus), and Caesar-weed. 3.2 Native Vegetation Due to the long-standing history and extent of citrus production and mining within the CU area, no natural areas or communities with native vegetation were observed, nor are anticipated which would be impacted by the sand mining expansion. According to the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) Policy 1.1.1 (8), parcels that were legally cleared of native vegetation prior to January 1989 shall be exempt from the native vegetation preservation requirement. No native vegetative communities are presently located onsite, and none have been present since the land was converted to agriculture at least 50 years ago (Figure 3). Since legal clearing of native vegetation throughout the entire site occurred prior to January 1989, it is exempt from the native vegetation requirement and is compliant with the CCME. Additionally, according to Section 10.02.06 C.1.d of the LDC, the entire site is exempt from having to obtain an agricultural clearing permit since it consisted of a bona fide agricultural operation prior to the effective date of Ordinance No. 76-42; thus, it is also in compliance with the LDC. 3.3 Wetlands and Other Surface Waters No state or federal jurisdictional wetlands were identified within the CU area pursuant to criteria found in Ch. 62-340, F.A.C., the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (1987), and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual for the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0). A total of 10.2 acres of excavated ditches are present which are state jurisdictional but not federal jurisdictional since no significant nexus to Waters of the United States (WOTUS) was identified. The 10.2 acres of ditches will be impacted by the project. Of the 10.2 acres of ditch impacts, 10.1 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 7 acres are upland-cut and do not require mitigation pursuant to 10.2.2.2 of the Statewide ERP (SWERP) Applicant’s Handbook, Volume I. The remaining 0.1 acres is located within a hydric mapping soil unit (Basinger fine sand), and thus, is considered wetland-cut. Because of the minimal area of wetland-cut impacts, limited hydrology, heavy presence of exotic species, and fact the entire project site was converted to citrus grove no later than 1968, these impacts were considered de minimis in association with previously approved ERP No. MMR_228414-005, and no mitigation was required. Reclamation efforts will yield naturalistic lacustrine shoreline conditions, which will provide a permanent water source and natural community to support a wide diversity of wildlife species in the post reclamation condition. 3.4 Listed Species A preliminary listed species survey was conducted on August 23, 2017 within the proposed 450.7 acre CU boundary for the occurrence and potential for occurrence of floral or faunal species listed or otherwise protected by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS), Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and Collier County. An updated preliminary listed species survey was conducted within the expansion area on March 3, 2020. Transects showing areas assessed during the updated survey are shown on Figure 8. Because the permitted CU area consists mostly of a mine lake surrounded by active mining areas which are highly disturbed, this area was not included in the updated survey. In addition to the preliminary site surveys, available database reviews and mapping were used to ascertain any previous documentation or likelihood of occurrence of FDACS, FWC, USFWS, and County listed or otherwise protected species. Specifically, reviews of the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) Biodiversity Matrix (Attachment 3), FWC Eagle Nest Locator, and FWC/USFWS listed species records were conducted. The results of the preliminary listed species surveys are as follows: 3.4.1 Listed Plants Pursuant to a query of FNAI’s Biodiversity Matrix (Attachment 3), no state and/or federally listed native plant species or plants identified as rare or less rare in Chapter 3.04.03 of the Collier County Land Development Codes have been documented or are likely within Matrix Units 46139, 46140, 46511, and 46512, which are the one-square mile assessment areas in which the project is located. Pursuant to a review of historic imagery from 1968 (Figure 3), the entirety of the project site has been disturbed for over 50 years. Due to the site wide and long term persistence of citrus and mining related disturbances, the presence of state and/or federally listed plant species or native species considered rare or less rare by Collier County are not anticipated, nor 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 8 were any observed; thus, impacts to protected native plant species are not anticipated. 3.4.2 Listed Wildlife Pursuant to the FNAI Biodiversity Matrix (Attachment 3), one listed native wildlife species, the Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi), has been documented within the one-square mile matrix units in which the CU area is located. Four additional listed or otherwise protected native wildlife species, the Audubon’s crested caracara (Polyborus plancus audubonii), wood stork (Mycteria americana), mangrove fox squirrel (Sciurus niger avicennia), and Florida black bear (Ursu americanus floridanus) are considered by FNAI as “likely” to occur within these matrix units. One listed species, the gopher tortoise (Gopherus Polyphemus) and one otherwise protected species, the American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), were observed on-site during the preliminary site surveys. Based on site characteristics, land use, and known geographic distribution and habitat requirements, listed or otherwise protected species that could be found in the CU area or adjacent lands in addition to the gopher tortoise and American alligator include the Florida panther, crested caracara, Florida black bear, wood stork, and eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon couperi). The presence of the mangrove fox squirrel and Florida scrub jay (identified by FNAI as a potential element) were determined to be unlikely onsite due to habitat limitations. The mangrove fox squirrel requires a variety of forested habitats including hardwood hammocks for food and cover while the Florida scrub jay is often found in abandoned citrus groves, but not those that are actively maintained as is the case onsite. Additionally, a search of the FWC Eagle Nest Locator did not detect any bald eagle nests nearby where associated protective buffers would be located onsite; thus, no impacts to this species are anticipated. The following provides additional information on the two listed or otherwise protected faunal species that have been identified onsite. American alligator The American alligator is listed as “Threatened” due to similarity of appearance (to the American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus)) by the USFWS and Federally-designated Threatened due to similarity of appearance by the FWC. Two American alligators were observed onsite within the perimeter ditch located along the western boundary of the mining expansion. The American crocodile is a coastal species and thus, misidentification of an American crocodile as an American 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9 alligator on this inland site is highly unlikely. While there are regulations related to the intentional feeding, harm, take, possession, or sale of individual alligators, nests, or eggs without appropriate licensing and permits, no developmental permitting restrictions are typically associated with the American alligator. Gopher Tortoise Pursuant to a query of FNAI Biodiversity Matrix, the gopher tortoise is a potential element within Matrix Units 46139, 46140, 46511, and 46512 (Attachment 3), in which the project is located. The gopher tortoise is listed as “Threatened” by the FWC and permits are required to impact areas containing tortoises or their burrows. Suitable habitat includes dry, sandy upland land uses and cover types, such as sandhills, scrub, xeric oak hammock, dry pine flatwoods, pastures, and abandoned groves. Based on the widespread land use disturbances, routine maintenance of the grove, low elevations and corresponding high water table, the likelihood of tortoises utilizing the project site is considered low, and would most likely be limited to berms along the perimeter and larger ditches and unmaintained grove areas at times of the year when the water table is depressed. During the March 2020 updated preliminary listed species surveys, three potentially occupied gopher tortoise burrows were observed (Figure 8). Two burrows were observed in a perimeter berm towards the northwestern boundary and one was observed in an unmaintained edge of the citrus grove to the south. No burrows were observed within the regularly maintained interior of the grove. In advance of mining related activities within the expansion area, surveys will be conducted pursuant to the FWC Gopher Tortoise Permitting Guidelines. Any potentially occupied gopher tortoise burrows occurring within the limits of disturbance will be addressed via permitting and relocation, per the FWC Gopher Tortoise Guidelines. Additional protected commensal species associated with the gopher tortoise have a low to moderate potential to utilize the property. These species are known as gopher tortoise burrow commensals and include species such as the gopher frog (Rana capito), and Florida mouse (Podomys floridanus). No commensal species were observed during the field review. Permitting and relocation of these protected species is generally addressed concurrently in association with the gopher tortoise permitting. Based on site characteristics, land use, and known geographic distribution and habitat requirements, the following species, which 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 10 have not been identified onsite, have the potential to occur on the project. Eastern Indigo Snake Pursuant to a query of FNAI Biodiversity Matrix, the eastern indigo snake is a potential element within Matrix Units 46139, 46140, 46511, and 46512 (Attachment 3), in which the project is located. The eastern indigo snake is listed as a “Threatened” species by the FWC and USFWS. It ranges over large areas often in the hundreds of acres over which it utilizes a mosaic of upland and wetland habitats, from scrub and sandhill to wet prairies and mangrove swamps. It will use most of the available habitats within its home range, but prefers open, undeveloped areas. The burrows of gopher tortoises are often used for denning as thermal refugia from winter cold and desiccating sandhill environments. Three potentially occupied gopher tortoise burrows were observed within the portion of the CU boundary proposed for expansion. The likelihood of occurrence onsite is considered low to moderate based on the rural nature of the surrounding area and the presence of only three gopher tortoise burrows over the entire parcel. As such, the USFWS’s Standard Protection Measures for the Eastern Indigo Snake will be used during site preparation and project construction. This will include an outline of the measures being incorporated, educational pamphlets, and signage (Attachment 4). All potentially occupied gopher tortoise burrows identified during future surveys conducted in advance of mining will be permitted and excavated prior to the initiation of site disturbance in the vicinity of the burrow. Any eastern indigo snakes which are encountered will be allowed to vacate the area prior to additional work in the burrow vicinity. Additionally, other underground refugia where eastern indigo snakes could be buried, trapped, and/or injured by mining activities will be identified and either excavated or inspected prior to work in the area. These measures along with the use of the USFWS’s standard protection measures should help to minimize impacts to this species, and as such, adverse effects are not anticipated. Wood Stork Pursuant to a query of the FNAI Biodiversity Matrix, the wood stork is a likely element within matrix units 46139, 46140, 46511, and 46512 (Attachment 3), in which the project is located. The wood stork is listed as “Threatened” by both the FWC and USFWS. Wood storks typically nest in rookeries found in stands of medium to tall trees, 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 11 particularly cypress, which occur along the edges of, or which form islands in large water bodies. Ideal habitat consists of a variety of inundated forested wetlands, including cypress strands and domes, mixed hardwood swamps, and sloughs. Foraging occurs in shallow marshes or artificial impoundments with fluctuating pools of open water that trap and concentrate prey items when water levels recede. The bulk of wood stork foraging occurs within an area designated by the USFWS as the core foraging area (CFA). The CFA is measured as a radial distance from the rookery. Pursuant to USFWS guidelines, the size of the CFA varies regionally across Florida, with CFA’s of 18.6 miles for rookeries in south Florida in which the expansion area is located. A review of the USFWS Wood Stork Nesting Colonies database revealed that the expansion area is located within three CFAs of known rookeries (Figure 4). Pursuant to Figure 2, a total of 10.2 acres of ditches are found onsite which are being proposed for impact within these CFA’s. These impacts consist primarily of upland-cut ditches that appear to have limited hydroperiods which rarely hold enough water to support permanent populations of fish (which make up the bulk of their diets) or other aquatic prey. Additionally, these ditches do not appear to be regularly maintained and are filled with a densely overgrown shrub and brush layer. As such, they do not appear to contain suitable wood stork foraging habitat; thus, the project is not anticipated to adversely affect this species. No mitigation was required from the state for impacts to these ditches in ERP No. MMR_228414-005 and since there is no significant nexus to WOTUS, these ditches are considered non-jurisdictional to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Florida Panther The Florida panther is listed as “Endangered” by the USFWS and FWC. Panthers require an extensive mosaic of native plant communities, which are contiguous and largely forested to meet their social, reproductive, and energetic needs. Large wetlands generally inaccessible to humans are important for diurnal refuge. Improved land use areas located within a mosaic of natural communities are tolerated. Panther habitat selection is related to prey availability, which means they select habitats that make prey vulnerable to stalking and capturing. Dense understory vegetation provides some of the most important feeding, resting, and denning cover for panthers. A search of the FNAI biodiversity index indicated the Florida panther has been documented within Matrix Units 46139, 46140, 46511, and 46512 (Attachment 3), within which the project is located. According to the FWC’s wildlife maps, the project site exists within the secondary 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 12 Florida panther habitat zone (Figure 5). The Secondary Zone is defined as lands that are contiguous with the Primary Zone and although these lands are used to a lesser extent by panthers, they are important to the long-term viability and persistence of the panther in the wild. Panthers use these lands in a much lower density than those found in the Primary Zone. Pursuant to telemetry data received from the FWC (Figure 6), almost all panther activity in the area has occurred in association with Corkscrew Swamp to the southwest and west of the project. There are a minimal number of telemetry records in the vicinity of the project that are located outside of Corkscrew Swamp. All these records are located to the east and southeast of the project site and all except one are from older records dating back to the 1980’s and 1990’s. Most of the records from the 2000’s or later are associated with Corkscrew Swamp approximately 1.8 miles to the west. There is one record from the 2010’s on a property adjacent to the eastern boundary of the project; however, considering it is the only record, regular use of this habitat as part of a territorial range or travel corridor appears unlikely. Due to the lack of telemetry data recorded onsite and the rarity of data on surrounding properties, the project does not appear to be regularly used as part of a travel corridor or territorial range. Additionally, there are no natural habitats associated with the project or nearby. All land which will be impacted consists of altered land use areas, with little to no functional value, such as extraction areas, citrus grove, disturbed land, and man-made surface water ditches. Onsite mining would appear to be compatible with Chapter 3.04.02 of the Collier County Land Development Codes which discourages the destruction of native habitats preferred by the Florida panther such as pine flatwoods and hardwood hammocks by directing intensive land uses to currently disturbed areas. As such, the project as proposed is not anticipated to adversely affect this species. Audubon’s crested caracara The Audubon’s crested caracara (caracara) is listed as “Threatened” by the USFWS and FWC. The project is located within the USFWS consultation area for the caracara. Caracaras prefer large pasture expanses, grasslands, or prairies with numerous shallow ponds and sloughs for foraging and single to small clumps (2 to 10) of cabbage palm, live oak (Quercus virginiana), and/or cypress (Taxodium spp.) for nesting, with a strong preference for cabbage palm as the primary nest tree. Nests are typically constructed 4 to 18 meters off the ground. Caracaras are opportunistic feeders that eat carrion and capture live prey, including a wide variety of vertebrates and invertebrates. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 13 A search of the FNAI biodiversity index indicated the caracara is likely to occur within Matrix Units 46139, 46140, 46511, and 46512 (Attachment 3), in which the project is located; however, the project consists primarily of citrus grove and extraction areas. Evidence of caracara activity was observed surrounding the project but not within the CU area. During the March 2020 updated assessment, one caracara pair was observed on a power pole to the northwest of the mining expansion, and one caracara individual was observed foraging in a pasture east of Edwards Grove Road. A low number (<25) of young, solitary cabbage palm trees were observed in the mining expansion, mostly along the western boundary. Six trees were observed with a height suitable to support nesting (>13 feet), five along the western boundary and one within the grove. These trees were inspected for nests during the original and updated surveys, and no nests were observed. A protective buffer of 1,500 meters is recommended around active caracara nests to avoid impacts to potentially occupied habitat. All land surrounding the expansion area consists of citrus grove. Land surrounding the active mining/existing CU area consists of a mix of citrus groves and other agricultural lands. Scattered, solitary palm trees were observed in the groves and other agricultural lands surrounding the existing mine/CU area and proposed mining expansion. As such, coordination was conducted with the USFWS to obtain the most current nesting data. Pursuant to USFWS data, the closest documented caracara nest is approximately 4834 feet (1473 meters) north of the northern boundary of the project (Figure 9). Due to the distance of the project from the nest, no impacts to nests or habitat occupied by this species is anticipated. Black Bear The Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) was de-listed by the FWC in August 2012, but is still protected by the Florida Black Bear Conservation Rule, 68A-1.004, F.A.C. According to the rule, no person is allowed to possess, injure, shoot, wound, trap, collect, or sell Florida black bears and the FWC is to provide comments to permitting agencies to minimize the impacts of land modifications on the conservation and management of black bears as outlined in the Florida Black Bear Management Plan. A search of the FNAI’s Biodiversity Matrix indicated the Florida black bear is a likely element within the matrix units 46139, 46140, 46511, and 46512 (Attachment 3), in which the project is located. Additionally, pursuant to the latest FWC mapping from 2016, Florida 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 14 black bear use onsite has been designated as “abundant” (Figure 7). This designation is indicative of areas within their range where records have shown that densities are highest, and bears spend the most amount of time. Such areas make up the core of bear populations, where evidence of reproduction is consistent, and comparable to areas previously designated as being within the primary range. The Florida black bear is known to utilize a variety of habitats including pine flatwoods, swamps and forested scrub and relies on contiguous forested expanses for cover and travel corridors. Bears main forage in Florida includes acorns, saw palmetto, and cabbage palm. Denning typically occurs in the ground surrounded by dense protective vegetation such as saw palmetto. The project consists of active citrus and mining operations, with no saw palmetto or other native vegetation. As such, limited cover, and no foraging or denning habitat exists onsite; thus, while the project is within a range where potential use is designated as “abundant”, the land uses onsite provide little in terms of habitat value and so, the proposed project is not anticipated to adversely affect this species. Based upon known geographic distribution and habitat requirements, no other floral or faunal species listed or otherwise protected by the county, state or federal governments are likely to be found onsite or affected by the proposed CU activities. While no significant habitat for county, state and/or federally listed species is known to be present or anticipated onsite due to the site wide and long-term persistence of agricultural and mining related disturbances, if any use by listed species is identified, Stewart Materials will comply with all requirements to avoid and/or minimize impacts and mitigate if necessary. 4.0 RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA The following additional project information is being provided to demonstrate consistency with the policies related to the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) Overlay which are found in the CCME of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Applicable policies are listed and addressed as follows: Policy 1.3.2: The overall purpose and description of the Rural Stewardship program is defined in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) Overlay found in the Future Land Use Element. A Stewardship Credit system has been established that shall serve as the primary basis for the protection of Flowway Stewardship Areas (FSAs), Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSAs) and Water Retention Areas (WRAs). The RLSA Overlay also contains policies that shall direct incompatible land uses away from FSAs, HSAs and WRAs in order to protect wetlands, upland habitats and listed species within the RLSA. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 15 No wetlands or native upland habitat communities are located onsite, and it appears none have been present since the land was converted to citrus historically which occurred at least 50 years ago (Figure 3). As indicated in Section 3.4, based on field observations of site characteristics, land use, and known geographic distribution and habitat requirements for listed species, no protected floral species or significant nesting or foraging habitat associated with faunal species listed by either the State or Federal government are likely to be found within the expanded CU boundary or be affected by the proposed activities. As such, the proposed land use associated with the mining expansion would not appear to be incompatible with the purpose of the Rural Stewardship program. Policy 6.1.3: For the County’s RLSA Overlay, as designated on the FLUM, native vegetation shall be preserved pursuant to the RLSA policies found in the Future Land Use Element. According to the CCME Policy 6.1.1 (8), parcels that were legally cleared of native vegetation prior to January 1989 shall be exempt from the native vegetation preservation requirement of Policy 6.1.3. No native vegetative communities are presently located onsite, and none have been present since the land was converted to citrus historically as evidenced by the 1968 aerial (Figure 3). As such, there is no native vegetation to preserve, and pursuant to Policy 6.1.5, the entire site is exempt from the preservation requirement as further detailed in the next response. Policy 6.1.5: Agriculture shall be exempt from the above preservation requirements contained in Policies 6.1.1, and 6.1.2 of this Element provided that any new clearing of land for agriculture shall not be converted to non- agricultural development for 25 years. For any such conversions in less than 25 years, the requirements of Policy 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 of this Element shall be applied to the site at the time of the conversion. The percentage of native vegetation preserved shall be calculated on the amount of vegetation occurring at the time of the agricultural clearing, and if found to be deficient, a native plant community shall be restored to re-create a native plant community in all three strata (ground covers, shrubs and trees), utilizing larger plant materials so as to more quickly re-create the lost mature vegetation. Agricultural clearing within the RLSA Overlay shall be allowed and guided by the RLSA policies found in the FLUE. All lands onsite had been converted to agriculture historically by 1968 as evidenced by the 1968 aerial provided as Figure 3. Additionally, mining as authorized under the existing CU has been ongoing in the eastern half of the site; thus, there are no new areas onsite which could be converted to agriculture. As such, the entire site should be exempt from the native vegetation preservation requirements of Policy 6.1.3. Policy 7.1.3: Listed species within the RLSA shall be protected pursuant to the RLSA Overlay policies within the Future Land Use Element. As indicated in Section 3.4, no listed species have been documented within the expanded CU boundary being proposed. Based on field observations of site 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 16 characteristics, land use, and known geographic distribution and habitat requirements for listed species, no protected plants or significant nesting or foraging habitat associated with wildlife species listed by the county, state, and/or federal government are likely to be found onsite or be affected by the proposed activities. 5.0 SOILS AND GROUNDWATER QUALITY Pursuant to Section 3.08.00.A.4.d.ii. of the LDC, soil and/or ground water sampling is required at the time of the first development order submittal for sites that occupy farm fields, including crop fields. Soils and water quality testing were both conducted in January 2018 as part of previously approved ERP No. MMR_228414-005. The State requested analyses because of the citrus operation which has been present on the project site dating back to at least 1968. Water quality sampling involved the collection of a surface water sample from at least two feet below the surface of the mine lake which was considered to be representative of the vicinity groundwater per guidance from the FDEP. The water sample was analyzed for mercury, specific conductivity, pH, chloride, sulfate, total dissolved solids (TDS), nitrate, nitrite, gross alpha, uranium, and combined radionuclides (radium-226 and radium-228). All parameters tested met the required water quality standards. For more information, please refer to the Soils and Water Quality Sampling Results provided as Attachment 5. While no water quality exceedances occurred with the preliminary water quality sampling, a groundwater quality monitoring program is being proposed to meet the criteria of Section 8.3.2 of the ERP Applicant’s Handbook, Volume I. Soil sampling involved the collection and compositing of six soil samples at depth intervals of 0-6”. Samples were analyzed for organochlorine pesticides (EPA Method 8081), organophosphorus pesticides (EPA Method 8141), chlorinated herbicides (EPA Method 8151), ethylene dibromide (EPA Method 8011), and copper and arsenic (EPA Method 6010). Organic Vapor Analysis (OVA) was also conducted in areas where there could be potential impacts from fuel storage, fueling, and maintenance, and proximal to any aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) and/or pump houses. Soils testing was also conducted in association with the OVA where applicable for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (EPA Method 8260), semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) (EPA Method 8270), total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons (TRPH) (Florida Residual Petroleum Range Organics (FL-PRO) Method), and metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and lead) (EPA Method 6010). Soil sampling testing determined no contaminants of concern were present above respective soil cleanup target levels. For additional information on soils testing and results please refer to Attachment 5. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) FIGURES 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 219.8 ACRE EXISTING MINE 231.7 ACRE MINING EXPANSION SR 82 Lamm RDEdwards Grove RDJohn son RD Wombles RD R evello ST O Qui nn RD Experimental RD Project Location Location Map 1 20193253.001A 4/24/2020 NCD/NL AWN 20-0424--SMI EdwardsGrove CUP-Location.mxdwww.kleinfelder.com PROJECT NO. DRAWN: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: FILE NAME: FIGURE The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information. Sections 18 & 19, Township 46 South, Range 29 East Legend Conditional Use Permit Boundary (450.7 Ac.±) Source: 2019 2.0-foot Natural-Color Orthophotos obtained from Collier County Property Appraiser's Office. £ 1 inch = 1,000 feet 1,000 0 1,000500 Feet Document Path: \\Mountdora\mountdora-data\GISCAD\Stewart Mining\_2019\20193253.001A_SMI Requested Services CY 2019\02-0000 Immo kalee RS\20-0424--SMI EdwardsGrove CUP-Location.mxd; Plotted: 4/24/2020, 10:41:52 AM, NLawrence Stewart Materials, LLC Edwards Grove Road Sand Mine Conditional Use Permit Application Collier County, Florida 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 221 514 514 514 514 514 514 514 514 514 514 514 514 514 514 514 514 514 514 514 514 514 514 514514 514 514 514 514 514 514 514 740 221 221 221 221 221221 221 221 221 221 221 221221 221 221 221 514 160 Existing Land Use Map Stewart Materials, LLC Edwards Grove Road Sand Mine Conditional Use Permit Application Collier County, Florida 2 20193253.001A 4/24/2020 NCD/NL AWN 20-0424--SMI EdwardsGrove CUP-ExistingLU.mxdwww.kleinfelder.com PROJECT NO. DRAWN: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: FILE NAME: FIGURE The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information. Sections 18 & 19, Township 46 South, Range 29 East Legend Conditional Use Permit Boundary (450.7 Ac.±) Existing Land Use Source: Land Use and Land Cover information prepared by Kleinfelder. The Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System Handbook, January 1999, was utilized to determine the specific land use classifications. 2019 2.0-foot Natural-Color Orthophotos obtained from Collier County Property Appraiser's Office.£ 1 inch = 500 feet 500 0 500250 Feet Document Path: \\Mountdora\mountdora-data\GISCAD\Stewart Mining\_2019\20193253.001A_SMI Requested Services CY 2019\02-0000 Immo kalee RS\20-0424--SMI EdwardsGrove CUP-ExistingLU.mxd; Plotted: 4/24/2020, 10:50:03 AM, NLawrence FLUCFCS CODE LAND USE ACREAGE % 160 Extractive 219.0 48.6 221 Citrus Groves 220.6 48.9 514 Man-Made Ditches 10.2 2.3 740 Disturbed Land 0.9 0.2 Total 450.7 100.0 FLORIDA LAND USE, COVER AND FORMS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM, 1999 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 1968 Aerial Image Stewart Materials, LLC Edwards Grove Road Sand Mine Conditional Use Permit Application Collier County, Florida 3 20193253.001A 4/24/2020 NCD/NL AWN 20-0424--SMI EdwardsGrove CUP-1968Aerial.mxdwww.kleinfelder.com PROJECT NO. DRAWN: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: FILE NAME: FIGURE The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information. Sections 18 & 19, Township 46 South, Range 29 East Legend Conditional Use Permit Boundary (450.7 Ac.±) Source: Black & White Aerial Photography obtained from the FDOT, Surveying and Mapping Office, Image Services. Photograph Date: 1968. Source Scale: Unknown. Aerial Photography was rectified by Kleinfelder utilizing 1995 Color IR Photography acquired from Florida Department of Environmental Protection - LABINS. £ 1 inch = 500 feet 500 0 500250 Feet Document Path: \\Mountdora\mountdora-data\GISCAD\Stewart Mining\_2019\20193253.001A_SMI Requested Services CY 2019\02-0000 Immo kalee RS\20-0424--SMI EdwardsGrove CUP-1968Aerial.mxd; Plotted: 4/24/2020, 10:53:28 AM, NLawrence 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) [® [® [® COLLIER COUNTY HENDRY COUNTY LEE COUNTY GLADES COUNTYCHARLOTTE COUNTY MONROE COUNTY Corkscrew Barron Collier Collier - Hendry SR 93 SR 29SR 90SR 45SR 82 SR 25SR 80 SR 78SR 739SR 8 84 SR 29SR 80 SR 45SR 739S R 8 0 Wood Stork Colony Location Map Stewart Materials, LLC Edwards Grove Road Sand Mine Conditional Use Permit Application Collier County, Florida 4 20193253.001A 4/24/2020 NCD/NL AWN 20-0424--SMI EdwardsGrove CUP-WoodStork.mxdwww.kleinfelder.com PROJECT NO. DRAWN: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: FILE NAME: FIGURE The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information. Sections 18 & 19, Township 46 South, Range 29 East Legend Conditional Use Permit Boundary (450.7 Ac.±) [®Wood Stork Nesting Colony 18.6 Miles Core Foraging Area (CFA) Source: Florida Wood Stork Nesting Colonies information obtained from the US Fish & Wildlife Service in the form of a Shapefile Feature Class. Source date: 2018. £ 1 inch = 6 miles 6 0 63 Miles Document Path: \\Mountdora\mountdora-data\GISCAD\Stewart Mining\_2019\20193253.001A_SMI Requested Services CY 2019\02-0000 Immo kalee RS\20-0424--SMI EdwardsGrove CUP-WoodStork.mxd; Plotted: 4/24/2020, 11:18:30 AM, NLawrence 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) USFWS Florida Panther Focus Area Map Stewart Materials, LLC Edwards Grove Road Sand Mine Conditional Use Permit Application Collier County, Florida 5 20193253.001A 4/24/2020 NCD/NL AWN 20-0424--SMI Edwards Grove CUP-PantherFocus.mxdwww.kleinfelder.com PROJECT NO. DRAWN: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: FILE NAME: FIGURE The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information. Sections 18 & 19, Township 46 South, Range 29 East Legend Conditional Use Permit Boundary (450.7 Ac.±) USFWS Florida Panther Habitat Zones Primary Secondary Source: FWC-FWRI (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission-Fish and Wildlife Research Institute). £ 1 inch = 3,000 feet 3,000 0 3,0001,500 Feet Document Path: \\Mountdora\mountdora-data\GISCAD\Stewart Mining\_2019\20193253.001A_SMI Requested Services CY 2019\02-0000 Immo kalee RS\20-0424--SMI EdwardsGrove CUP-PantherFocus.mxd; Plotted: 4/24/2020, 11:32:14 AM, NLawrence 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) # # # # #### ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # * * * * **** ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * " " " " " " " " " "" " " "" " " ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )) ) ) )) ) ) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $$$ $ $ $ + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + +++ + + + ! ! ( ( Florida Panther Telemetry Map Stewart Materials, LLC Edwards Grove Road Sand Mine Conditional Use Permit Application Collier County, Florida 6 20193253.001A 4/24/2020 NCD/NL AWN 20-0424--SMI Edwards Grove CUP-PantherTelemetry.mxdwww.kleinfelder.com PROJECT NO. DRAWN: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: FILE NAME: FIGURE The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information. Sections 18 & 19, Township 46 South, Range 29 East Legend Conditional Use Permit Boundary (450.7 Ac.±) Florida Panther Telemetry (1981-2018) #*1980's ")1990's $+2000's !(2010's Source: FWC-FWRI (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission-Fish and Wildlife Research Institute). £ 1 inch = 4,000 feet 4,000 0 4,0002,000 Feet Document Path: \\Mountdora\mountdora-data\GISCAD\Stewart Mining\_2019\20193253.001A_SMI Requested Services CY 2019\02-0000 Immo kalee RS\20-0424--SMI EdwardsGrove CUP-PantherTelemetry.mxd; Plotted: 4/24/2020, 11:39:57 AM, NLawrence 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) Black Bear Range Map Stewart Materials, LLC Edwards Grove Road Sand Mine Conditional Use Permit Application Collier County, Florida 7 20193253.001A 4/24/2020 NCD/NL AWN 20-0424--SMI Edwards Grove CUP-BlackBear.mxdwww.kleinfelder.com PROJECT NO. DRAWN: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: FILE NAME: FIGURE The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information. Sections 18 & 19, Township 46 South, Range 29 East Legend Conditional Use Permit Boundary (450.7 Ac.±) Black Bear Range Abundant Common Occasional Source: FWC-FWRI (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission-Fish and Wildlife Research Institute), 2016. £ 1 inch = 15,000 feet 15,000 0 15,0007,500 Feet Document Path: \\Mountdora\mountdora-data\GISCAD\Stewart Mining\_2019\20193253.001A_SMI Requested Services CY 2019\02-0000 Immo kalee RS\20-0424--SMI EdwardsGrove CUP-BlackBear.mxd; Plotted: 4/24/2020, 11:45:01 AM, NLawrence 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) %%[¶ [¶ [¶ Listed Species Survey Map Stewart Materials, LLC Edwards Grove Road Sand Mine Conditional Use Permit Application Collier County, Florida 8 20193253.001A 4/24/2020 NL AWN 20-0424--SMI Edwards Grove CUP-ListedSppSurvey.mxdwww.kleinfelder.com PROJECT NO. DRAWN: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: FILE NAME: FIGURE The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information. Sections 18 & 19, Township 46 South, Range 29 East Legend Conditional Use Permit Boundary (450.7 Ac.±) %%Survey Transects [¶Potentially Occupied Gopher Tortoise Burrows (3) Source: 2019 2.0-foot Orthophotos obtained from the Collier Property Appraiser, Image Services in the form of MrSid format.£ 1 inch = 500 feet 500 0 500250 Feet Document Path: \\Mountdora\mountdora-data\GISCAD\Stewart Mining\_2019\20193253.001A_SMI Requested Services CY 2019\02-0000 Immo kalee RS\20-0424--SMI EdwardsGrove CUP-ListedSppSurvey.mxd; Plotted: 4/24/2020, 11:48:00 AM, NLawrence Note: Field survey was conducted on March 3, 2020. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) kj kj kj kj [b 18328.4'±12739.2'±4833.9'±SR-29SR-82 N 15TH STIMMOKALEE D R CR890/LK TR AFFORD R D W MAIN STCARSON RDN E W M A R K E T R D WS 1ST STWESTCLOX ST N 1ST STUSFWS Caracara Nest and Observation Stewart Materials, LLC Edwards Grove Road Sand Mine Conditional Use Permit Application Collier County, Florida 9 20193253.001A 4/24/2020 NL AWN 20-0424--SMI EdwardsGrove CUP-Caracara.mxdwww.kleinfelder.com PROJECT NO. DRAWN: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: FILE NAME: FIGURE The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for use as a land survey product nor is it designed or intended as a construction design document. The use or misuse of the information contained on this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using or misusing the information. Sections 18 & 19, Township 46 South, Range 29 East Legend Conditional Use Permit Boundary (450.7 Ac.±) USFWS Caracara Nest & Observation kj Nest [b Observation Source: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. World Imagery was obtained from ESRI Basemap. Image origin: State of Florida. Date: 12/23/2018 & 12/24/2018. £ 1 inch = 3,000 feet 3,000 0 3,0001,500 Feet Document Path: \\Mountdora\mountdora-data\GISCAD\Stewart Mining\_2019\20193253.001A_SMI Requested Services CY 2019\02-0000 Immo kalee RS\20-0424--SMI EdwardsGrove CUP-Caracara.mxd; Plotted: 4/24/2020, 11:50:19 AM, NLawrence 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) ATTACHMENTS 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) ATTACHMENT 1 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) BILL NEWLON Senior Environmental Scientist / Project Professional Experience Summary Mr. Newlon has worked in the field of environmental planning and permitting for over 17 years with an extensive background in wetlands, listed species, and natural resource management. Wetland experience includes state and/or federal delineations, significant nexus evaluations, formal jurisdictional determinations, agency verifications, ordinary high water determinations, hydrologic monitoring, and quantitative functional assessments. Wetland work has been conducted throughout the state of Florida, and in other states including Georgia, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, Michigan, North Carolina, and Utah. Listed species experience includes preliminary listed species assessments, a wide variety of species specific faunal and floral surveys, submerged aquatic vegetation surveys, wildlife consultation for listed state and federal species, rookery and bald eagle surveys/monitoring, gopher tortoise, bald eagle, FL scrub jay and wood stork permitting, and translocations of the gopher tortoise and burrow commensals, FL mouse, and giant orchid. Natural resource management experience includes habitat and land use mapping, environmental site assessments, state and federal environmental resource permitting, mitigation design and monitoring, aerial photographic interpretation, sovereign submerged lands investigations, water quality monitoring, compliance investigations/resolution, mitigation banking, and exotic/nuisance species maintenance. He has worked for a wide variety of clients in public and private sectors, including local government departments like the School Board, Public Works, Board of County Commissioners, and Parks and Recreation, private mining companies involved in the extraction of limestone, sand, phosphate, peat and heavy minerals, residential, commercial, industrial, and waterfront developers, and oil, natural gas, and solar energy providers. To serve those clients, he has worked with various agencies/departments across local, state and federal governments to secure entitlements and permits, like the Environmental Management, Building and Zoning, and Planning and Development Departments of various municipalities; the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Department of Environmental Protection (Division of State Lands, Bureau of Mining and Minerals Regulation, Environmental Resource Program, Wetland Evaluation and Delineation Section, Compliance and Enforcement, and Industrial Wastewater Program), and Water Management Districts (Northwest Florida, St. Johns, Southwest Florida, South Florida, and Suwannee) of the state government of Florida; and the Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Protection Agency, and Fish and Wildlife Service of the federal government of the United States. Education  M.S., Wildlife Biology, University of New Orleans, 2001. Thesis research conducted on phenotypic parameters of a colonial tunicate, Botryllus schlosseri, found in a brackish estuarine river in Damariscotta, ME.  B.S., Wildlife Biology, Old Dominion University, 1997  B.A., Management – Entrepreneurship, Gettysburg College, 1991 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) Professional Affiliations  Society of Wetland Scientists  Florida Association of Environmental Professionals  Florida Wildlife Society  Gopher Tortoise Council Publications and Papers  Newlon, A.W., Yund, P.O., and Savage, J.S. 2003. Phenotypic Plasticity of Reproductive Effort in a Colonial Ascidian, Botryllus schlosseri. Journal of Experimental Zoology. 297A:180-188. Certifications, Conferences and Courses  Authorized FWC Gopher Tortoise Agent – Permit # GTA-09-00239A  Open Water Diver Certification, PADI  Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) Safety Certification – Updated Annually  Adult CPR and AED Certification – Updated Bi-annually  Gopher Tortoise Conservation Initiative Course at the Ashton Biodiversity Research & Preservation Institute  NRCS / SWFWMD Soils and Seasonal High Ground Water Table (SHGWT) Workshop  FDEP Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM) Workshop  Florida Wildlife Society Conferences  Basic Fire Management training certificate for sections I-100, S-130, S-190, and L- 180 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) ATTACHMENT 2 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) KLF Project #20180455.001A Page 1 of 5 December 2017 MOU17R66725 STEWART MATERIALS, INC. IMMOKALEE MINE EXPANSION ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATION STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CALCULATIONS October 2017 Revised December 2017 Submitted to: FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Mining and Mitigation Program 2600 Blair Stone Road, MS 3577 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Prepared for: STEWART MATERIALS, INC. 2875 Jupiter Park Drive, Suite 1100 Jupiter, Florida 33458 Prepared by: KLEINFELDER INC. 1174 Camp Avenue Mount Dora, FL 32757 o| 352.383.1444, f| 352.383.3877 Certificate of Authorization #31004 Copyright 2017 Kleinfelder All Rights Reserved ONLY THE CLIENT OR ITS DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVES MAY USE THIS DOCUMENT AND ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC PROJECT FOR WHICH THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine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rian Burkhart This item has been digitally signed and sealed by E. Brian Burkhart, PE on the date provided using a Digital Signature. Printed copies of this document are not considered signed and sealed and the SHA authentication code must be verified on any electronic copies. 2019.10.28 15:36:34-04'00' 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) KLF Project #20180455.001A Page 3 of 5 December 2017 MOU17R66725 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CALCULATIONS The stormwater management calculations for Stewart Materials Inc. Immokalee Mine Expansion were performed to evaluate the stormwater runoff and storage associated with the mining and post-mining conditions of the existing permitted area and the proposed expansion area. The storage calculations were performed using a seasonal high water level (SHWL) of 34.0 feet-NGVD (FDEP ERP 0228414-003) and a rainfall depth of 10.2 inches for the 25-year, 72-hour storm event obtained from the NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 9, Version 2 for Immokalee, Florida (refer to Exhibit 1). The existing permitted area and the proposed expansion area are divided into two drainage areas during the pre-mining phase conditions with a total area of 447.95 acres (refer to Exhibit 2). The stormwater management calculations indicate that both the proposed mine pit and post-mining lake will provide sufficient storage to retain the total runoff volume from the 25-year, 72-hour storm event. No discharges are expected from the mine pits and lakes during the mining and post-mining phase conditions, respectively. MINING PHASE The worst case scenario during mining would occur after the topsoil has been removed and relocated to the perimeter of the mining area to create a berm, and before any excavation has commenced. At this time, the site itself would be utilized as the stormwater pond for any rainfall falling on the proposed site. The top of the berm surrounding the mining area will need to be a minimum of one (1) foot above existing grade to retain the total runoff volume generated by the 25-year, 72-hour storm event. As shown on the proposed Mine Site Plan, the topsoil will be stored to a minimum height of five (5) feet above grade, allowing more than four (4) feet of freeboard. Additionally, the removal of the overburden itself will create supplementary stormwater storage volume between the existing grade and the SHWL. The existing permitted area and the proposed expansion area are comprised of one drainage area during the mining phase conditions with a total area of 438.31 acres (refer to Exhibit 3). The total drainage area was defined using the top of the berm. POST - MINING PHASE Upon completion of mining operations, the berm surrounding the site will be reduced to a minimum elevation of 36 feet-NGVD and the extraction site will be converted into a lake. The top of the berm of the existing permitted area and proposed expansion area is considered the limit of the drainage basin. The post-mining phase drainage area will be approximately 433.77 acres (refer to Exhibit 4). The total drainage area was defined using the top of the berm. The lowest outfall elevation will be 36 feet-NGVD. The available storage volume in the lake was calculated using a SHWL of 34.0 feet-NGVD and 100 % impervious basin area. Runoff Volume = (433.77 ac x 10.2 in/12 in) = 368.70 ac-ft 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) KLF Project #20180455.001A Page 4 of 5 December 2017 MOU17R66725 Available Storage Volume (V): The proposed post-mining phase lake is 417.61 acres at the SHWL of 34 ft-NGVD and 419.96 acres at the top of berm (internal area) of 36 ft- NGVD. The difference in elevation within the available storage volume is 2 feet. V = [(417.61 + 419.96)/2] x 2 = 837.57 ac-ft Freeboard Calculation (FB): V = [(A1 + A2)/2] x H 𝑯 = 𝑉 (𝐴1 + 𝐴2 2 ) Where; V = runoff volume, ac-ft A1 = lake area at the SHWL, acres A2 = lake area at the top of berm, acres H = water depth above the SHWL, ft 𝑯 = 368.70 (417.61 +419.96 2 ) H = 0.88 ft The water level (WL) in the lake after the 25-year, 24-hour storm event is equal to the SHWL plus H. WL = 34.00 + 0.88 = 34.88 feet-NGVD FB = top of berm elevation – WL FB = 36.00 – 34.88 = 1.12 feet The lake will retain the total runoff volume from the 25-year, 72-hour storm event and provide a freeboard of approximately 1.12 feet. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) KLF Project #20180455.001A Page 5 of 5 December 2017 MOU17R66725 Limitations This work was performed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of Kleinfelder’s profession practicing in the same locality, under similar conditions and at the date the services are provided. Our conclusions, opinions, and recommendations are based on a limited number of observations and data. It is possible that conditions could vary between or beyond the data evaluated. Kleinfelder makes no other representation, guarantee, or warranty, express or implied, regarding the services, communication (oral or written), report, opinion, or instrument of service provided. This report may be used only by the Client and the registered design professional in responsible charge and only for the purposes stated for this specific engagement within a reasonable time from its issuance, but in no event later than two (2) years from the date of the report. The work performed was based on project information provided by Client. If Client does not retain Kleinfelder to review any plans and specifications, including any revisions or modifications to the plans and specifications, Kleinfelder assumes no responsibility for the suitability of our recommendations. In addition, if there are any changes in the field to the plans or specifications, Client must obtain written approval from Kleinfelder’s engineer that such changes do not affect our recommendati ons. Failure to do so will vitiate Kleinfelder’s recommendations. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 9, Version 2 Location name: Immokalee, Florida, USA* Latitude: 26.4683°, Longitude: -81.4612° Elevation: 33.34 ft** * source: ESRI Maps ** source: USGS POINT PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY ESTIMATES Sanja Perica, Deborah Martin, Sandra Pavlovic, Ishani Roy, Michael St. Laurent, Carl Trypaluk, Dale Unruh, Michael Yekta, Geoffery Bonnin NOAA, National Weather Service, Silver Spring, Maryland PF_tabular | PF_graphical | Maps_&_aerials PF tabular PDS-based point precipitation frequency estimates with 90% confidence intervals (in inches)1 Duration Average recurrence interval (years) 1 2 5 10 25 50 100 200 500 1000 5-min 0.538 (0.429-0.678) 0.609 (0.484-0.768) 0.725 (0.575-0.918) 0.822 (0.648-1.05) 0.956 (0.731-1.26) 1.06 (0.793-1.42) 1.16 (0.844-1.61) 1.27 (0.886-1.82) 1.41 (0.949-2.09) 1.52 (0.997-2.30) 10-min 0.788 (0.628-0.993) 0.892 (0.709-1.13) 1.06 (0.842-1.34) 1.20 (0.949-1.53) 1.40 (1.07-1.85) 1.55 (1.16-2.08) 1.70 (1.24-2.36) 1.86 (1.30-2.66) 2.07 (1.39-3.06) 2.22 (1.46-3.36) 15-min 0.961 (0.765-1.21) 1.09 (0.865-1.37) 1.30 (1.03-1.64) 1.47 (1.16-1.87) 1.71 (1.31-2.25) 1.89 (1.42-2.54) 2.08 (1.51-2.88) 2.27 (1.58-3.25) 2.52 (1.70-3.73) 2.71 (1.78-4.10) 30-min 1.48 (1.18-1.86) 1.67 (1.33-2.11) 1.99 (1.58-2.52) 2.26 (1.78-2.87) 2.63 (2.01-3.47) 2.91 (2.18-3.91) 3.20 (2.32-4.43) 3.49 (2.44-5.00) 3.88 (2.61-5.75) 4.18 (2.74-6.32) 60-min 1.95 (1.56-2.46) 2.20 (1.75-2.78) 2.61 (2.07-3.31) 2.96 (2.33-3.76) 3.44 (2.63-4.54) 3.82 (2.86-5.13) 4.20 (3.04-5.81) 4.59 (3.20-6.57) 5.11 (3.44-7.58) 5.52 (3.62-8.34) 2-hr 2.43 (1.94-3.04) 2.73 (2.18-3.42) 3.23 (2.58-4.06) 3.66 (2.90-4.62) 4.25 (3.27-5.58) 4.72 (3.56-6.31) 5.19 (3.79-7.15) 5.68 (3.99-8.09) 6.34 (4.30-9.34) 6.85 (4.53-10.3) 3-hr 2.65 (2.13-3.31) 2.99 (2.40-3.73) 3.55 (2.84-4.44) 4.03 (3.20-5.07) 4.70 (3.64-6.16) 5.24 (3.97-6.99) 5.79 (4.25-7.95) 6.36 (4.49-9.04) 7.14 (4.86-10.5) 7.74 (5.14-11.6) 6-hr 3.01 (2.43-3.72) 3.43 (2.77-4.25) 4.15 (3.34-5.17) 4.78 (3.82-5.98) 5.68 (4.43-7.42) 6.41 (4.89-8.52) 7.17 (5.30-9.81) 7.97 (5.67-11.3) 9.07 (6.22-13.3) 9.93 (6.64-14.8) 12-hr 3.34 (2.71-4.11) 3.90 (3.17-4.81) 4.87 (3.94-6.02) 5.73 (4.61-7.12) 6.98 (5.49-9.10) 8.01 (6.15-10.6) 9.08 (6.76-12.4) 10.2 (7.33-14.4) 11.8 (8.17-17.2) 13.1 (8.81-19.3) 24-hr 3.80 (3.10-4.65) 4.46 (3.64-5.46) 5.62 (4.57-6.90) 6.67 (5.40-8.23) 8.23 (6.52-10.7) 9.53 (7.37-12.6) 10.9 (8.19-14.8) 12.4 (8.96-17.4) 14.5 (10.1-21.0) 16.2 (11.0-23.7) 2-day 4.50 (3.70-5.47) 5.18 (4.26-6.30) 6.42 (5.25-7.83) 7.56 (6.15-9.27) 9.29 (7.42-12.0) 10.8 (8.39-14.1) 12.3 (9.32-16.7) 14.0 (10.2-19.6) 16.5 (11.6-23.8) 18.5 (12.6-26.9) 3-day 5.01 (4.13-6.06) 5.77 (4.75-6.99) 7.13 (5.85-8.66) 8.36 (6.83-10.2) 10.2 (8.18-13.2) 11.8 (9.20-15.4) 13.4 (10.2-18.1) 15.2 (11.1-21.2) 17.8 (12.5-25.5) 19.8 (13.6-28.8) 4-day 5.47 (4.52-6.60) 6.30 (5.20-7.61) 7.75 (6.38-9.40) 9.06 (7.42-11.0) 11.0 (8.81-14.1) 12.6 (9.87-16.4) 14.3 (10.9-19.1) 16.1 (11.8-22.3) 18.7 (13.2-26.7) 20.8 (14.3-30.0) 7-day 6.78 (5.63-8.14) 7.71 (6.40-9.27) 9.31 (7.70-11.2) 10.7 (8.80-13.0) 12.7 (10.2-16.1) 14.3 (11.3-18.4) 16.0 (12.2-21.3) 17.8 (13.1-24.4) 20.3 (14.4-28.7) 22.2 (15.4-32.0) 10-day 8.02 (6.68-9.59) 9.01 (7.49-10.8) 10.7 (8.85-12.8) 12.1 (9.98-14.6) 14.1 (11.3-17.7) 15.7 (12.4-20.1) 17.4 (13.3-22.9) 19.1 (14.1-26.0) 21.5 (15.3-30.3) 23.3 (16.2-33.4) 20-day 11.6 (9.72-13.8) 12.8 (10.7-15.2) 14.7 (12.2-17.5) 16.2 (13.5-19.4) 18.3 (14.8-22.7) 19.9 (15.8-25.2) 21.5 (16.5-28.0) 23.2 (17.1-31.2) 25.3 (18.1-35.2) 26.9 (18.8-38.3) 30-day 14.6 (12.2-17.2) 16.0 (13.4-18.9) 18.2 (15.2-21.6) 19.9 (16.6-23.8) 22.2 (17.9-27.3) 23.9 (19.0-30.0) 25.6 (19.7-33.1) 27.2 (20.2-36.3) 29.2 (20.9-40.4) 30.6 (21.5-43.4) 45-day 18.2 (15.4-21.5) 20.0 (16.9-23.6) 22.8 (19.1-27.0) 24.9 (20.8-29.6) 27.6 (22.3-33.7) 29.6 (23.5-36.8) 31.3 (24.2-40.2) 33.0 (24.5-43.8) 34.9 (25.1-48.0) 36.2 (25.6-51.2) 60-day 21.3 (18.0-25.1) 23.5 (19.9-27.7) 26.8 (22.6-31.7) 29.4 (24.6-34.9) 32.6 (26.3-39.5) 34.7 (27.6-43.0) 36.7 (28.3-46.8) 38.4 (28.6-50.8) 40.4 (29.1-55.2) 41.6 (29.4-58.6) 1 Precipitation frequency (PF) estimates in this table are based on frequency analysis of partial duration series (PDS). Numbers in parenthesis are PF estimates at lower and upper bounds of the 90% confidence interval. The probability that precipitation frequency estimates (for a given duration and average recurrence interval) will be greater than the upper bound (or less than the lower bound) is 5%. Estimates at upper bounds are not checked against probable maximum precipitation (PMP) estimates and may be higher than currently valid PMP values. Please refer to NOAA Atlas 14 document for more information. Back to Top Page 1 of 4Precipitation Frequency Data Server 9/28/2017https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?lat=26.4683&lon=-81.4612&data=depth&units... 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) PF graphical Back to Top Page 2 of 4Precipitation Frequency Data Server 9/28/2017https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?lat=26.4683&lon=-81.4612&data=depth&units... 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) Maps & aerials Small scale terrain Large scale terrain Large scale map + – 3km 2mi + – 100km 60mi + – 100km 60mi Page 3 of 4Precipitation Frequency Data Server 9/28/2017https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?lat=26.4683&lon=-81.4612&data=depth&units... 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) Large scale aerial Back to Top US Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Weather Service National Water Center 1325 East West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910 Questions?: HDSC.Questions@noaa.gov Disclaimer + – 100km 60mi Page 4 of 4Precipitation Frequency Data Server 9/28/2017https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?lat=26.4683&lon=-81.4612&data=depth&units... 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 35 40 4035 35 35 35 35 35 3 5 35 35 35 35 35 35 3535 35 3535 3535DA-2 DA-1 Pre-Mining PhaseDrainage Map Stewart Materials, Inc.Western Immokalee Mine ExpansionCollier County, Florida 2 20180455.001A 12/4/2017 CTC BN Pre Mining Phase Drainage Map.mxdwww.kleinfelder.com PROJECT NO. DRAWN: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: FILE NAME: EXHIBITThe information included on this graphic representation has beencompiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change withoutnotice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, expressor implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to theuse of such information. This document is not intended for use as aland survey product nor is it designed or intended as a constructiondesign document. The use or misuse of the information containedon this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using ormisusing the information. Sections 18 & 19, Township 46 South, Range 29 East Legend Permitted Project Boundary (219.8 Ac.±) Expansion Project Boundary (231.0 Ac.±) Surface Flow Direction (Off-Site) Surface Flow Direction (On-Site) Existing Contours (ft-NGVD) Existing Agricultural Ditch (Off-Site) Existing Agricultural Ditch (On-Site) Pre Mining Phase Drainage Area DA-1 = 211.33 Ac. DA-2 = 236.62 Ac. £ 1 inch = 550 feet 500 0 500250 Feet Document Path: \\mountdora\MOUNTDORA-DATA\GISCAD\Stewart Mining\_2017\20180455.001A_SMI-Immokalee West Expansion\Stormwater\GIS\ImmokaleeExpansion-PreMining Phase Drainage Map.mxd; Plotted: 12/4/2017, 9:33:01 AM, ccolon 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 35 40 35 35 35 3535 35 403 5 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 3535 35 35 3 5 35 DA-1_2 Mining PhaseDrainage Map Stewart Materials, Inc.Western Immokalee Mine ExpansionCollier County, Florida 3 20180455.001A 12/4/2017 CTC BN Mining Phase Drainage Map.mxdwww.kleinfelder.com PROJECT NO. DRAWN: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: FILE NAME: EXHIBITThe information included on this graphic representation has beencompiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change withoutnotice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, expressor implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to theuse of such information. This document is not intended for use as aland survey product nor is it designed or intended as a constructiondesign document. The use or misuse of the information containedon this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using ormisusing the information. Sections 18 & 19, Township 46 South, Range 29 East Legend Permitted Project Boundary (219.8 Ac.±) Expansion Project Boundary (231.0 Ac.±) Surface Flow Direction (Off-Site) Surface Flow Direction (On-Site) Existing Contours (ft-NGVD) Existing Agricultural Ditch (Off-Site) Mining Phase Drainage Area DA-1_2 = 438.31 Ac. (Top of Berm) £ 1 inch = 550 feet 500 0 500250 Feet Document Path: \\mountdora\MOUNTDORA-DATA\GISCAD\Stewart Mining\_2017\20180455.001A_SMI-Immokalee West Expansion\Stormwater\GIS\ImmokaleeExpansion-Mining Phase Drainage Map.mxd; Plotted: 12/4/2017, 9:58:01 AM, ccolon 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 35 40 353 5 35 35 35 3535 40DA-1_2 363532 24 -49Post-Mining PhaseDrainage Map Stewart Materials, Inc.Western Immokalee Mine ExpansionCollier County, Florida 4 20180455.001A 12/4/2017 CTC BN Post Mining Phase Drainage Map.mxdwww.kleinfelder.com PROJECT NO. DRAWN: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: FILE NAME: EXHIBIT The information included on this graphic representation has beencompiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change withoutnotice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, expressor implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to theuse of such information. This document is not intended for use as aland survey product nor is it designed or intended as a constructiondesign document. The use or misuse of the information containedon this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using ormisusing the information. Sections 18 & 19, Township 46 South, Range 29 East Legend Permitted Project Boundary (219.8 Ac.±) Expansion Project Boundary (231.0 Ac.±) Surface Flow Direction (Off-Site) Surface Flow Direction (On-Site) Post-Mining Phase Contours (ft-NGVD) Existing Agricultural Ditch (Off-Site) Post Mining Phase Drainage Area DA-1_2 = 433.77 Ac. (Top of Berm) £ 1 inch = 550 feet 500 0 500250 Feet Document Path: \\mountdora\MOUNTDORA-DATA\GISCAD\Stewart Mining\_2017\20180455.001A_SMI-Immokalee West Expansion\Stormwater\GIS\ImmokaleeExpansion-Post Mining Phase Drainage Map.mxd; Plotted: 12/4/2017, 9:48:40 AM, ccolon 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) ATTACHMENT 3 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) NOTE: The Biodiversity Matrix includes only rare species and natural communities tracked by FNAI. Report for 4 Matrix Units: 46139 , 46140 , 46511 , 46512 Descriptions DOCUMENTED - There is a documented occurrence in the FNAI database of the species or community within this Matrix Unit. DOCUMENTED-HISTORIC - There is a documented occurrence in the FNAI database of the species or community within this Matrix Unit; however the occurrence has not been observed/reported within the last twenty years. LIKELY - The species or community is known to occur in this vicinity, and is considered likely within this Matrix Unit because: 1. documented occurrence overlaps this and adjacent Matrix Units, but the documentation isn’t precise enough to indicate which of those Units the species or community is actually located in; or 2. there is a documented occurrence in the vicinity and there is suitable habitat for that species or community within this Matrix Unit. POTENTIAL - This Matrix Unit lies within the known or predicted range of the species or community based on expert knowledge and environmental variables such as climate, soils, topography, and landcover. Matrix Unit ID: 46139 1 Documented Element Found Scientific and Common Names Global Rank State Rank Federal Status State Listing Puma concolor coryi Florida Panther G5T1 S1 LE FE 0 Documented-Historic Elements Found 1018 Thomasville Road Suite 200-C Tallahassee, FL 32303 850-224-8207 850-681-9364 fax www.fnai.org Florida Natural Areas Inventory Biodiversity Matrix Query Results UNOFFICIAL REPORT Created 3/10/2020 (Contact the FNAI Data Services Coordinator at 850.224.8207 or kbrinegar@fnai.fsu.edu for information on an official Standard Data Report) Page 1 of 4FNAI Biodiversity Matrix 3/10/2020https://data.labins.org/mapping/FNAI_BioMatrix/GridSearch.cfm?sel_id=46139,46140,46... 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 3 Likely Elements Found Scientific and Common Names Global Rank State Rank Federal Status State Listing Caracara cheriway Crested Caracara G5 S2 LT FT Mycteria americana Wood Stork G4 S2 LT FT Ursus americanus floridanus Florida Black Bear G5T2 S2 N N Matrix Unit ID: 46140 1 Documented Element Found Scientific and Common Names Global Rank State Rank Federal Status State Listing Puma concolor coryi Florida Panther G5T1 S1 LE FE 0 Documented-Historic Elements Found 3 Likely Elements Found Scientific and Common Names Global Rank State Rank Federal Status State Listing Caracara cheriway Crested Caracara G5 S2 LT FT Mycteria americana Wood Stork G4 S2 LT FT Ursus americanus floridanus Florida Black Bear G5T2 S2 N N Matrix Unit ID: 46511 1 Documented Element Found Scientific and Common Names Global Rank State Rank Federal Status State Listing Puma concolor coryi Florida Panther G5T1 S1 LE FE 0 Documented-Historic Elements Found 5 Likely Elements Found Scientific and Common Names Global Rank State Rank Federal Status State Listing Caracara cheriway Crested Caracara G5 S2 LT FT Mesic flatwoods G4 S4 N N Mycteria americana Wood Stork G4 S2 LT FT Sciurus niger avicennia Mangrove Fox Squirrel G5T2 S2 N ST Ursus americanus floridanus Florida Black Bear G5T2 S2 N N Page 2 of 4FNAI Biodiversity Matrix 3/10/2020https://data.labins.org/mapping/FNAI_BioMatrix/GridSearch.cfm?sel_id=46139,46140,46... 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) Matrix Unit ID: 46512 1 Documented Element Found Scientific and Common Names Global Rank State Rank Federal Status State Listing Puma concolor coryi Florida Panther G5T1 S1 LE FE 0 Documented-Historic Elements Found 5 Likely Elements Found Scientific and Common Names Global Rank State Rank Federal Status State Listing Caracara cheriway Crested Caracara G5 S2 LT FT Mesic flatwoods G4 S4 N N Mycteria americana Wood Stork G4 S2 LT FT Sciurus niger avicennia Mangrove Fox Squirrel G5T2 S2 N ST Ursus americanus floridanus Florida Black Bear G5T2 S2 N N Matrix Unit IDs: 46139 , 46140 , 46511 , 46512 21 Potential Elements Common to Any of the 4 Matrix Units Scientific and Common Names Global Rank State Rank Federal Status State Listing Andropogon arctatus Pine-woods Bluestem G3 S3 N T Aphelocoma coerulescens Florida Scrub-Jay G2 S2 LT FT Athene cunicularia floridana Florida Burrowing Owl G4T3 S3 N SSC Calopogon multiflorus Many-flowered Grass-pink G2G3 S2S3 N T Centrosema arenicola Sand Butterfly Pea G2Q S2 N E Drymarchon couperi Eastern Indigo Snake G3 S3 LT FT Elytraria caroliniensis var. angustifolia Narrow-leaved Carolina Scalystem G4T2 S2 N N Gopherus polyphemus Gopher Tortoise G3 S3 C ST Grus canadensis pratensis Florida Sandhill Crane G5T2T3 S2S3 N ST Gymnopogon chapmanianus Chapman's Skeletongrass G3 S3 N N Lechea cernua Nodding Pinweed G3 S3 N T Linum carteri var. smallii Small's Flax G2T2 S2 N E Lithobates capito Gopher Frog G3 S3 N SSC Mustela frenata peninsulae Florida Long-tailed Weasel G5T3 S3 N N Nemastylis floridana Celestial Lily G2 S2 N E G3 S3 N T Page 3 of 4FNAI Biodiversity Matrix 3/10/2020https://data.labins.org/mapping/FNAI_BioMatrix/GridSearch.cfm?sel_id=46139,46140,46... 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) Nolina atopocarpa Florida Beargrass Picoides borealis Red-cockaded Woodpecker G3 S2 LE FE Platanthera integra Yellow Fringeless Orchid G3G4 S3 N E Pteroglossaspis ecristata Giant Orchid G2G3 S2 N T Rostrhamus sociabilis Snail Kite G4G5 S2 LE N Tephrosia angustissima var. curtissii Coastal Hoary-pea G1T1 S1 N E Disclaimer The data maintained by the Florida Natural Areas Inventory represent the single most comprehensive source of information available on the locations of rare species and other significant ecological resources statewide. However, the data are not always based on comprehensive or site-specific field surveys. Therefore, this information should not be regarded as a final statement on the biological resources of the site being considered, nor should it be substituted for on-site surveys. FNAI shall not be held liable for the accuracy and completeness of these data, or opinions or conclusions drawn from these data. FNAI is not inviting reliance on these data. Inventory data are designed for the purposes of conservation planning and scientific research and are not intended for use as the primary criteria for regulatory decisions. Unofficial Report These results are considered unofficial. FNAI offers a Standard Data Request option for those needing certifiable data. Page 4 of 4FNAI Biodiversity Matrix 3/10/2020https://data.labins.org/mapping/FNAI_BioMatrix/GridSearch.cfm?sel_id=46139,46140,46... 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) ATTACHMENT 4 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) STANDARD PROTECTION MEASURES FOR THE EASTERN INDIGO SNAKE U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service August 12, 2013 The eastern indigo snake protection/education plan (Plan) below has been developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in Florida for use by applicants and their construction personnel. At least 30 days prior to any clearing/land alteration activities, the applicant shall notify the appropriate USFWS Field Office via e-mail that the Plan will be implemented as described below (North Florida Field Office: jaxregs@fws.gov; South Florida Field Office: verobeach@fws.gov; Panama City Field Office: panamacity@fws.gov). As long as the signatory of the e-mail certifies compliance with the below Plan (including use of the attached poster and brochure), no further written confirmation or “approval” from the USFWS is needed and the applicant may move forward with the project. If the applicant decides to use an eastern indigo snake protection/education plan other than the approved Plan below, written confirmation or “approval” from the USFWS that the plan is adequate must be obtained. At least 30 days prior to any clearing/land alteration activities, the applicant shall submit their unique plan for review and approval. The USFWS will respond via e- mail, typically within 30 days of receiving the plan, either concurring that the plan is adequate or requesting additional information. A concurrence e-mail from the appropriate USFWS Field Office will fulfill approval requirements. The Plan materials should consist of: 1) a combination of posters and pamphlets (see Poster Information section below); and 2) verbal educational instructions to construction personnel by supervisory or management personnel before any clearing/land alteration activities are initiated (see Pre-Construction Activities and During Construction Activities sections below). POSTER INFORMATION Posters with the following information shall be placed at strategic locations on the construction site and along any proposed access roads (a final poster for Plan compliance, to be printed on 11” x 17” or larger paper and laminated, is attached): DESCRIPTION: The eastern indigo snake is one of the largest non-venomous snakes in North America, with individuals often reaching up to 8 feet in length. They derive their name from the glossy, blue-black color of their scales above and uniformly slate blue below. Frequently, they have orange to coral reddish coloration in the throat area, yet some specimens have been reported to only have cream coloration on the throat. These snakes are not typically aggressive and will attempt to crawl away when disturbed. Though indigo snakes rarely bite, they should NOT be handled. SIMILAR SNAKES: The black racer is the only other solid black snake resembling the eastern indigo snake. However, black racers have a white or cream chin, thinner bodies, and WILL BITE if handled. LIFE HISTORY: The eastern indigo snake occurs in a wide variety of terrestrial habitat types throughout Florida. Although they have a preference for uplands, they also utilize some wetlands 1 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) and agricultural areas. Eastern indigo snakes will often seek shelter inside gopher tortoise burrows and other below- and above-ground refugia, such as other animal burrows, stumps, roots, and debris piles. Females may lay from 4 - 12 white eggs as early as April through June, with young hatching in late July through October. PROTECTION UNDER FEDERAL AND STATE LAW: The eastern indigo snake is classified as a Threatened species by both the USFWS and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. “Taking” of eastern indigo snakes is prohibited by the Endangered Species Act without a permit. “Take” is defined by the USFWS as an attempt to kill, harm, harass, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, trap, capture, collect, or engage in any such conduct. Penalties include a maximum fine of $25,000 for civil violations and up to $50,000 and/or imprisonment for criminal offenses, if convicted. Only individuals currently authorized through an issued Incidental Take Statement in association with a USFWS Biological Opinion, or by a Section 10(a)(1)(A) permit issued by the USFWS, to handle an eastern indigo snake are allowed to do so. IF YOU SEE A LIVE EASTERN INDIGO SNAKE ON THE SITE: • Cease clearing activities and allow the live eastern indigo snake sufficient time to move away from the site without interference; • Personnel must NOT attempt to touch or handle snake due to protected status. • Take photographs of the snake, if possible, for identification and documentation purposes. • Immediately notify supervisor or the applicant’s designated agent, and the appropriate USFWS office, with the location information and condition of the snake. • If the snake is located in a vicinity where continuation of the clearing or construction activities will cause harm to the snake, the activities must halt until such time that a representative of the USFWS returns the call (within one day) with further guidance as to when activities may resume. IF YOU SEE A DEAD EASTERN INDIGO SNAKE ON THE SITE: • Cease clearing activities and immediately notify supervisor or the applicant’s designated agent, and the appropriate USFWS office, with the location information and condition of the snake. • Take photographs of the snake, if possible, for identification and documentation purposes. • Thoroughly soak the dead snake in water and then freeze the specimen. The appropriate wildlife agency will retrieve the dead snake. Telephone numbers of USFWS Florida Field Offices to be contacted if a live or dead eastern indigo snake is encountered: North Florida Field Office – (904) 731-3336 Panama City Field Office – (850) 769-0552 South Florida Field Office – (772) 562-3909 2 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) PRE-CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES 1. The applicant or designated agent will post educational posters in the construction office and throughout the construction site, including any access roads. The posters must be clearly visible to all construction staff. A sample poster is attached. 2. Prior to the onset of construction activities, the applicant/designated agent will conduct a meeting with all construction staff (annually for multi-year projects) to discuss identification of the snake, its protected status, what to do if a snake is observed within the project area, and applicable penalties that may be imposed if state and/or federal regulations are violated. An educational brochure including color photographs of the snake will be given to each staff member in attendance and additional copies will be provided to the construction superintendent to make available in the onsite construction office (a final brochure for Plan compliance, to be printed double-sided on 8.5” x 11” paper and then properly folded, is attached). Photos of eastern indigo snakes may be accessed on USFWS and/or FWC websites. 3. Construction staff will be informed that in the event that an eastern indigo snake (live or dead) is observed on the project site during construction activities, all such activities are to cease until the established procedures are implemented according to the Plan, which includes notification of the appropriate USFWS Field Office. The contact information for the USFWS is provided on the referenced posters and brochures. DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES 1. During initial site clearing activities, an onsite observer may be utilized to determine whether habitat conditions suggest a reasonable probability of an eastern indigo snake sighting (example: discovery of snake sheds, tracks, lots of refugia and cavities present in the area of clearing activities, and presence of gopher tortoises and burrows). 2. If an eastern indigo snake is discovered during gopher tortoise relocation activities (i.e. burrow excavation), the USFWS shall be contacted within one business day to obtain further guidance which may result in further project consultation. 3. Periodically during construction activities, the applicant’s designated agent should visit the project area to observe the condition of the posters and Plan materials, and replace them as needed. Construction personnel should be reminded of the instructions (above) as to what is expected if any eastern indigo snakes are seen. POST CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES Whether or not eastern indigo snakes are observed during construction activities, a monitoring report should be submitted to the appropriate USFWS Field Office within 60 days of project completion. The report can be sent electronically to the appropriate USFWS e-mail address listed on page one of this Plan. 3 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) IF YOU SEE A LIVE EASTERN INDIGO SNAKE ON THE SITE: • Cease clearing activities and allow the eastern indigo snake sufficient time to move away from the site without interference. • Personnel must NOT attempt to touch or handle snake due to protected status. • Take photographs of the snake, if possible, for identification and documentation purposes. • Immediately notify supervisor or the applicant’s designated agent, and the appropriate U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) office, with the location information and condition of the snake. • If the snake is located in a vicinity where continuation of the clearing or construction activities will cause harm to the snake, the activities must halt until such time that a representative of the USFWS returns the call (within one day) with further guidance as to when activities may resume. IF YOU SEE A DEAD EASTERN INDIGO SNAKE ON THE SITE: • Cease clearing activities and immediately notify supervisor or the applicant’s designated agent, and the appropriate USFWS office, with the location information and condition of the snake. • Take photographs of the snake, if possible, for identification and documentation purposes. • Thoroughly soak the dead snake in water and then freeze the specimen. The appropriate wildlife agency will retrieve the dead snake. USFWS Florida Field Offices to be contacted if a live or dead eastern indigo snake is encountered: North Florida ES Office – (904) 731-3336 Panama City ES Office – (850) 769-0552 South Florida ES Office – (772) 562-3909 DESCRIPTION: The eastern indigo snake is one of the largest non-venomous snakes in North America, with individuals often reaching up to 8 feet in length. They derive their name from the glossy, blue-black color of their scales above and uniformly slate blue below. Frequently, they have orange to coral reddish coloration in the throat area, yet some specimens have been reported to only have cream coloration on the throat. These snakes are not typically aggressive and will attempt to crawl away when disturbed. Though indigo snakes rarely bite, they should NOT be handled. SIMILAR SNAKES: The black racer is the only other solid black snake resembling the eastern indigo snake. However, black racers have a white or cream chin, thinner bodies, and WILL BITE if handled. LIFE HISTORY: The eastern indigo snake occurs in a wide variety of terrestrial habitat types throughout Florida. Although they have a preference for uplands, they also utilize some wetlands and agricultural areas. Eastern indigo snakes will often seek shelter inside gopher tortoise burrows and other below- and above- ground refugia, such as other animal burrows, stumps, roots, and debris piles. Females may lay from 4 - 12 white eggs as early as April through June, with young hatching in late July through October. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Killing, harming, or harassing indigo snakes is strictly prohibited and punishable under State and Federal Law. Only individuals currently authorized through an issued Incidental Take Statement in association with a USFWS Biological Opinion, or by a Section 10(a)(1)(A) permit issued by the USFWS, to handle an eastern indigo snake are allowed to do so. LEGAL STATUS: The eastern indigo snake is classified as a Threatened species by both the USFWS and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. “Taking” of eastern indigo snakes is prohibited by the Endangered Species Act without a permit. “Take” is defined by the USFWS as an attempt to kill, harm, harass, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, trap, capture, collect, or engage in any such conduct. Penalties include a maximum fine of $25,000 for civil violations and up to $50,000 and/or imprisonment for criminal offenses, if convicted. ATTENTION: THREATENED EASTERN INDIGO SNAKES MAY BE PRESENT ON THIS SITE!!! Please read the following information provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to become familiar with standard protection measures for the eastern indigo snake. Photo: Dirk Stevenson August 12, 2013 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road ATTENTION: THREATENED EASTERN INDIGO SNAKES MAY BE PRESENT ON THIS SITE!!! IF YOU SEE A LIVE EASTERN INDIGO SNAKE ON THE SITE: •Cease clearing activities and allow the eastern indigo snake sufficient time to move away from the site without interference. •Personnel must NOT attempt to touch or handle snake due to protected status. •Take photographs of the snake, if possible, for identification and documentation purposes. •Immediately notify supervisor or the applicant’s designated agent, and the appropriate U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) office, with the location information and condition of the snake. •If the snake is located in a vicinity where continuation of the clearing or construction activities will cause harm to the snake, the activities must halt until such time that a representative of the USFWS returns the call (within one day) with further guidance as to when activities may resume. IF YOU SEE A DEAD EASTERN INDIGO SNAKE ON THE SITE: •Cease clearing activities and immediately notify supervisor or the applicant’s designated agent, and the appropriate USFWS office, with the location information and condition of the snake. •Take photographs of the snake, if possible, for identification and documentation purposes. •Thoroughly soak the dead snake in water and then freeze the specimen. The appropriate wildlife agency will retrieve the dead snake. USFWS Florida Field Offices to be contacted if a live or dead eastern indigo snake is encountered: North Florida Field Office – (904) 731-3336 Panama City Field Office – (850) 769-0552 South Florida Field Office – (772) 562-3909 Killing, harming, or harassing indigo snakes is strictly prohibited and punishable under State and Federal Law. DESCRIPTION: The eastern indigo snake is one of the largest non-venomous snakes in North America, with individuals often reaching up to 8 feet in length. They derive their name from the glossy, blue-black color of their scales above and uniformly slate blue below. Frequently, they have orange to coral reddish coloration in the throat area, yet some specimens have been reported to only have cream coloration on the throat. These snakes are not typically aggressive and will attempt to crawl away when disturbed. Though indigo snakes rarely bite, they should NOT be handled. SIMILAR SNAKES: The black racer is the only other solid black snake resembling the eastern indigo snake. However, black racers have a white or cream chin, thinner bodies, and WILL BITE if handled. LIFE HISTORY: The eastern indigo snake occurs in a wide variety of terrestrial habitat types throughout Florida. Although they have a preference for uplands, they also utilize some wetlands and agricultural areas. Eastern indigo snakes will often seek shelter inside gopher tortoise burrows and other below- and above- ground refugia, such as other animal burrows, stumps, roots, and debris piles. Females may lay from 4 - 12 white eggs as early as April through June, with young hatching in late July through October. PROTECTION: The eastern indigo snake is classified as a Threatened species by both the USFWS and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. “Taking” of eastern indigo snakes is prohibited by the Endangered Species Act without a permit. “Take” is defined by the USFWS as an attempt to kill, harm, harass, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, trap, capture, collect, or engage in any such conduct. Penalties include a maximum fine of $25,000 for civil violations and up to $50,000 and/or imprisonment for criminal offenses, if convicted. Only individuals currently authorized through an issued Incidental Take Statement in association with a USFWS Biological Opinion, or by a Section 10(a)(1)(A) permit issued by the USFWS, to handle an eastern indigo snake are allowed to do so. Photo: Dirk Stevenson August 12, 2013 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) ATTACHMENT 5 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 8933 Western Way, Suite 12 Jacksonville, FL 32256 p|904.538.9171 f| 904.538.9172 February 9, 2018 20180455.001A|JAX18L73217 Florida Department of Environmental Protection Mining and Mitigation Program Attn: Alan Whitehouse via E-Mail: Alan.Whitehouse@dep.state.fl.us Bob Martinez Center 2600 Blair Stone Road, M.S. 3577 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 RE: Immokalee Sand Mine Expansion Stewart Materials, LLC Immokalee, Collier County, Florida MMR_228414-005 Dear Mr. Whitehouse: In response to the request for additional information (RAI) dated November 28, 2017 (Attachment A) for the proposed expansion of the Immokalee Mine (Site), Kleinfelder personnel mobilized to the Site on January 11, 2018 to conduct surface water and soil assessment activities. Surface water and soil assessment activities were conducted pursuant to the sampling plan approved by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) on December 14, 2017 (Attachment B). Methodology In order to assess for pollution sources from homogenous crop fields with routine agricultural application in the proposed mining area, one (1) composite soil sample was collected and composited from six (6) discrete soil sampling locations. A map of the discrete soil sampling locations is provided on Figure 1. Soil samples were collected in accordance with DEP-SOP- 001/01 FS 3000, Soil Sampling. The samples were collected at depth intervals of 0-6”. The composite sample was then immediately placed on ice and shipped to Advanced Environmental Laboratories, Inc. (AEL) to be analyzed for organochlorine pesticides (EPA Method 8081), organophosphorus pesticides (EPA Method 8141), chlorinated herbicides (EPA Method 8151), ethylene dibromide (EPA Method 8011), and copper and arsenic (EPA Method 6010). In order to assess for potential impacts in areas of fuel storage, fueling, and maintenance, and proximal to any aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) and/or pump houses within the proposed mining area, organic vapor analysis (OVA) was performed at five (5) locations where fueling, AST bulk fuel storage, and/or fuel use was suspected or had been identified. OVA screening was performed in general accordance with AST closure and assessment guidance as outlined in Chapter 62-762.801(2) 5, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Kleinfelder personnel installed soil borings at cardinal points surrounding each of the ASTs and/or secondary 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 20180455.001A|JAX18L73217 February 9, 2018 © 2018 Kleinfelder Page 2 of 3 containment structures with one (1) boring location near the containment drain valve, if present, or at areas exhibiting surface staining, stressed vegetation, or other signs of petroleum leaks or discharges. Soils were screened at 1’-intervals from each soil boring location to a terminal depth of 10’ below ground surface (bgs) or 1’ into the groundwater table, whichever was encountered first. When soils exhibited impacts based on OVA screening levels above background concentrations (>10 ppm), one (1) soil sample was collected from the boring and depth interval at each area of concern exhibiting the highest OVA concentration. Based on OVA screening results, one (1) soil sample (SB-3) was collected for subsequent analysis. SB-3, located near a diesel AST associated with a pumping station at the grove, had an OVA screening result of 40.3 ppm at a depth of 0-1’ bgs. The sample collected from SB-3 was immediately placed on ice and shipped to AEL to be analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (EPA Method 8260), semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) (EPA Method 8270), total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons (TRPH) (Florida Residual Petroleum Range Organics (FL-PRO) Method), and metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and lead) (EPA Method 6010). The location of the SB-3 soil sample location is depicted on Figure 1. One (1) surface water sample was collected from at least two (2) feet below the water surface of the active mine pit in accordance with DEP-SOP-001/01 FS 2100, Surface Water Sampling. The sample was immediately placed on ice and shipped to AEL to be analyzed for mercury, specific conductivity, pH, chloride, sulfate, total dissolved solids (TDS), nitrate, nitrite, gross alpha, uranium, and combined radionuclides (radium-226 and radium-228). The location of the surface water sample is depicted on Figure 1. Analytical Results No contaminants of concern (COCs) within the analytical suite were detected above their respective soil cleanup target levels (SCTLs) or applicable surface water quality criteria. Contaminants of concern within each analytical suite that were detected above the laboratory practical quantitation limit (PQL) are included in Table 1 (soil) and Table 2 (surface water). A copy of the laboratory analytical results is included as Attachment C. Conclusions Based on the analytical results discussed above, no additional assessment of soils and/or surface water is recommended at the site. We trust that the above response is sufficient to address remaining concerns as identified within the Department’s November 28, 2017 RAI at this time. If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at your earliest convenience. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 284Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) Figure 1 Sample Location Map 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) &=&= &=&= &=&= Soil Sampling Location Map Stewart Materials, LLCImmokalee Sand Mine ExpansionCollier County, Florida 1 20180455.001A 12/7/2017 NL/NCD AWN 18-0207--Immokalee Exp-SoilSamplingLocation.mxdwww.kleinfelder.com PROJECT NO. DRAWN: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: FILE NAME: FIGUREThe information included on this graphic representation has beencompiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change withoutnotice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, expressor implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to theuse of such information. This document is not intended for use as aland survey product nor is it designed or intended as a constructiondesign document. The use or misuse of the information containedon this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using ormisusing the information. Sections 18 & 19, Township 46 South, Range 29 East Legend Expansion Project Boundary (231.0 Ac.±) &=Grove Discrete Soil Sampling Locations Pit Surface Water Sample Location SB-3 Soll Sample Location Source: 2016 RGB 2.0-foot Orthophotos obtained from the FDOT, Surveying and Mapping Office, Image Services in the form of MrSid format. £ 1 inch = 400 feet 400 0 400200 Feet Document Path: \\Mountdora\mountdora-data\GISCAD\Stewart Mining\_2017\20180455.001A_SMI-Immokalee West Expansion\03-0000 Requested Services\18-0207--ImmokaleeExp-SoilSamplingLocation.mxd; Plotted: 2/8/2018, 10:03:59 AM, NDePriest 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) Table 1 Soil Sample Analytical Results Summary 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) Table 1 Soil Sample Analytical Results Summary Chromium (mg/kg)Lead (mg/kg) Cadmium (mg/kg) SCTL Leachability Based on Groundwater 38 -7.5 SCTL Direct Exposure Residential 210 400 82 SCTL Direct Exposure Commercial/Industrial 470 1400 1700 Grove Comp-20180111 6.0 3.8 0.19 SB-3 (0-1)-20180111 2.2 1.9 ND Notes: SCTL = Soil Cleanup Target Level as set forth in 62-777, Florida Administrative Code ND = Not detected above PQL Only contaminants of concern detected above the laboratory PQL are listed. Sample ID Parameter Page 1 of 1 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Table 2 Surface Water Sample Analytical Results Summary 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) Table 2 Surface Water Sample Analytical Results Summary Uranium (ug/L)Chloride (mg/L) Nitrate (mg/L) Sulfate (mg/L) Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) SWQC ≤ 15 ---- SMI-PIP 2.8 19 2.6 54 100 Notes: SWQC = Surface Water Quality Criteria as set forth in 62-302, Florida Administrative Code Only contaminants of concern detected above the laboratory PQL are listed. Sample ID Parameter Page 1 of 1 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Attachment A Request for Additional Information 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) Florida Department of Environmental Protection Bob Martinez Center 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Rick Scott Governor Carlos Lopez-Cantera Lt. Governor Noah Valenstein Secretary REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION November 28, 2017 Stewart Materials, LLC. c/o Mr. Nick Stewart, Chief Executive Officer 2875 Jupiter Park Drive, Suite 1100 Jupiter, Florida 33458 Re: Stewart Materials, LLC, File No. MMR_228414-005, Collier County Immokalee Sand Mine Expansion Dear Mr. Stewart: This is to acknowledge receipt of your application on October 30, 2017 for an environmental resource permit, pursuant to Part IV of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. A Department staff review of the application and supporting documentation indicates that the application is incomplete. Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 62-330, F.A.C., please provide the information in the attached document and refer to this correspondence in your response. Portions of the response to this correspondence must be signed, sealed, and dated by a registered Florida Professional. For the Department to continue processing your application, please submit the requested information as soon as possible. The Department must receive a response within 90 days of the date of this letter, unless a written request for additional time to provide the requested information is submitted and approved. Pursuant to Chapter 62-330 and Section 120.60, F.S., failure of an applicant to provide the timely requested information by the applicable deadline may result in denial of the application. You are encouraged to contact this office to discuss the items requested to assist you in developing a complete and adequate response. Please submit the response in electronic format to miningandmitigation@dep.state.fl.us, with a copy to Alan.Whitehouse@dep.state.fl.us. If the file is very large, you may post it to a folder on this office’s ftp site at: ftp://ftp.dep.state.fl.us/pub/incoming . After posting the document, send an e-mail to miningandmitigation@dep.state.fl.us, with a copy to Alan.Whitehouse@dep.state.fl.us, alerting us that it has been posted. If you have any questions, please contact me by telephone at 850-245-8641 or by e-mail at Alan.Whitehouse@dep.state.fl.us. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) Mr. Nick Stewart Page 2 of 2 November 28, 2017 Sincerely, Alan Whitehouse Environmental Specialist Florida Department of Environmental Protection Attachment: (1) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) Attachment: List of Requested Information Nick Stewart, Chief Executive Officer Site Name: Immokalee Sand Mine DEP Application No.: MMR_228414-005 Collier County Note: All the construction plans, stormwater management report, supplemental documentations and their revisions provided in support of the application should be dated, signed and sealed by the appropriate Florida-licensed professional. Also, please ensure that all the figures, tables and exhibits are appropriately numbered. 1. Section A, Part 1.H. The applicant reported the coordinates of the project central location as “Latitude (DMS) 26° 28' 3.91" and Longitude (DMS) 81° 27' 41.67".” However, the format of the reported longitude is not correct. Please revise the longitude format as “Longitude (DMS) - 81° 27' 41.67".” 2. Section A, Part 1.L: The applicant’s response to this item was: “No off-site discharge of mine process water or stormwater will occur as currently permitted. No named waterbodies are present, only ditches associated with the onsite citrus grove.”. However, the proposed mining activity occur within the “COW SLOUGH (WBID 3278E)” drainage. Please change the answer to this item to “COW SLOUGH.” 3. Section A, Part 2.D: Please submit the required application fee, in accordance with rule 62-4.050(4), F.A.C. 4. Section H, Part 2.1.a: In response to this item the applicant referred to drainage calculations provided in “Stormwater Management Report provided as Appendix B.” However, the Appendix B does not contain separate pre-development (existing), construction phase (during mining and reclamation) and post-development (post-reclamation) drainage/runoff maps. Please provide the requested maps as prescribed in this item. 5. Section H, Part 2.1.b: The applicant’s response to this item was: “Please refer to the Stormwater Management Report provided as Appendix B.” However, the Appendix B does not contain all the information and the drawings requested in this item. Please provide the requested maps as prescribed in this item. 6. Section H, Part 2.2.c: The applicant’s response to this item was: “Not applicable. No dewatering will occur in association with mining.” Please clarify if there are any private or public wells within 500ft of the proposed project boundary. 7. Section H, Part 2.2.f: Ambient surface water and groundwater quality characterization are necessary for the proposed project. The applicant did not provide ambient surface water or groundwater quality data. Please submit a water quality sampling plan. The sampling plan should address ambient surface water sampling (minimally in upgradient and downgradient of the project area), groundwater sampling (from minimum of one well downgradient of the groundwater flow). Since the expansion area is located immediately adjacent to the current permitted mine, it may be assumed that the mine pit water is representative of the vicinity water. As such, please collect and analyze at least one water sample from the active mine pit. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) Nick Stewart, Chief Executive Officer Site Name: Immokalee Sand Mine DEP Application No.: MMR_228414-005 Attachment Page 2 Water samples need to be performed according to DEP-SOP-001/01 FS 2100, Surface Water Sampling. A copy of the document can be found at the following web address: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/sas/sop/sops.htm. Surface water sample should be collected for analysis by a NELAC-certified laboratory for: Mercury, Specific conductivity, pH, Chloride, Sulfate, Total dissolved solids, Nitrate, Nitrite, Gross Alpha, Uranium, Combined Radionuclides (radium 226 and radium 228). Additionally, field measurements of temperature, dissolved oxygen and turbidity should be collected during sampling. Details about “Surface Water Quality Standards” can be found in Florida Administrative Code 62-302. The Department is available to discuss the specifics of a sampling plan. The applicant may also provide previously acquired sampling results for the project area. 8. Section H, Part 2.2.K: The applicant’s response to this item was: “No soil sampling has been conducted onsite or is proposed.” However, soil sampling is necessary for this project. Please submit a soil sampling plan as prescribed in this item for currently or previously under agricultural area. Soil samplings need to be performed according to DEP-SOP-001/01 FS 3000, Soil (Revision date March 31, 2008). 9. Section H, Part 3.a: please revise the analysis according to the response to comment number 4, if applicable. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) Attachment B Soil Sampling Plan and Soil Sampling Plan Approval 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) SMI IMMOKALEE SOIL SAMPLING PLAN  Page 1 of 2  20180455.001A    December 14, 2017  As part of the RAI Response to ERP Application No. MMR_228414-005, and based on conversation(s) with the Department, the following soil sampling plan is being proposed by Kleinfelder to address RAI Item 8. In order to assess for pollution sources from homogenous crop fields with routine agrichemical application in the proposed mining area, a composite soil sample will be collected and composited from six (6) discrete sampling sites as indicated on the Soil Sampling Location Map. The soil sample will be collected using the following methodology. Methodology The samples will be collected pursuant to DEP-SOP-001/01 FS 3000, Soil (Revision date March 31, 2008) along with the following: - The collection of samples will be performed using a hand auger and a sand bucket. - Samples will be collected at depth intervals of 0-6”. Analysis The composite sample collected from the six (6) sampling sites (Soil Sampling Location Map) will be analyzed by a NELAP-certified environmental analytical laboratory using the following analytes/methods. - Organochlorine pesticides (EPA Method 8081 or equivalent) - Organophosphorus pesticides (EPA Method 8141 or equivalent) - Chlorinated herbicides (EPA Method 8151 or equivalent) - Ethylene dibromide (EPA Method 8011 or equivalent) - Copper and Arsenic (EPA Method 6010 or equivalent) Additionally, to assess for potential impacts in areas of fuel storage, fueling, and maintenance, and proximal to any above ground storage tanks (ASTs) and/or pump houses within the proposed mining area, organic vapor analysis (OVA) will be performed at up to five (5) identified locations where fueling, AST bulk fuel storage and/or fuel use is suspected or has been identified using the following methodology. Methodology OVA analysis will be performed in general accordance with AST closure and assessment guidance as outlined in Chapter 62-762.801(2) 5, F.A.C. During field screening activities, Kleinfelder will install soil borings at cardinal points surrounding each of the ASTs and/or secondary containment structures with one (1) boring location near the containment drain valve, if present, or at areas exhibiting surface staining, stressed vegetation, or other signs of petroleum leaks or discharge. Soils will be screened at 1’-intervals from each soil boring location to a terminal depth of 10’ below ground surface (bls) or 1’ into the groundwater table, whichever is encountered first. If soils exhibit impacts based on OVA screening above background concentrations (>10 ppm), one (1) soil sample will be collected from the boring and depth interval at each area of concern exhibiting the highest OVA concentration. Analysis Any soil samples, up to a maximum of five (5), that are collected for subsequent analysis will be submitted to a NELAP-certified analytical laboratory for analysis of petroleum constituents of 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) SMI IMMOKALEE SOIL SAMPLING PLAN  Page 2 of 2  20180455.001A    December 14, 2017  concern using the following analytes/methods. - Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including benzene, ethyl-benzene, toluene, total xylenes and methyl tert-butyl ether (EPA Method 8260 or equivalent) - Semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) including 1-methylnaphthalene, 2- methylnaphthalene, acenaphthene, acenaphthylene, anthracene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, chrysene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, fluoranthene, fluorine, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, naphthalene, phenanthrene, and pyrene (EPA Method 8270 or equivalent) - Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (Florida Residual Petroleum Range Organics Method) Metals: arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and lead (EPA Method 6010 or equivalent). No bulk hazardous chemical storage areas, pesticide or herbicide mixing stations, or cattle dipping vats have been identified within the area of proposed mining. If any of these or other suspected pollution sources are discovered, potential impacts will be assessed and reported to the Department, as appropriate, in accordance with Chapter 62-780, F.A.C. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) Soil Sampling Location Map Stewart Materials, LLCImmokalee Sand Mine ExpansionCollier County, Florida - 20180455.001A 12/7/2017 NL AWN 17-1207--Immokalee Exp-SoilSamplingLocation.mxdwww.kleinfelder.com PROJECT NO. DRAWN: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: FILE NAME: FIGUREThe information included on this graphic representation has beencompiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change withoutnotice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, expressor implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to theuse of such information. This document is not intended for use as aland survey product nor is it designed or intended as a constructiondesign document. The use or misuse of the information containedon this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using ormisusing the information. Sections 18 & 19, Township 46 South, Range 29 East Legend Expansion Project Boundary (231.0 Ac.±) Soil Sampling Locations Source: 2016 RGB 2.0-foot Orthophotos obtained from the FDOT, Surveying and Mapping Office, Image Services in the form of MrSid format. 1 inch = 400 feet 400 0 400200 Feet Document Path: \\mountdora\MOUNTDORA-DATA\GISCAD\Stewart Mining\_2017\20180455.001A_SMI-Immokalee West Expansion\03-0000 Requested Services\17-1207--ImmokaleeExp-SoilSamplingLocation.mxd; Plotted: 12/7/2017, 4:10:48 PM, NLawrence 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 1 Lisa Daugherty From:Mahjoor, Amirsasan <Amirsasan.Mahjoor@dep.state.fl.us> Sent:Thursday, December 14, 2017 3:41 PM To:Lisa Daugherty Cc:Whitehouse, Alan Subject:RE: Immokalee Sand Mine Soil Sampling Plan MMR 228414-005 External Email.   Hello Lisa, Hello Lisa, I reviewed the proposed sampling plan. It appears to be sufficient. Please feel free to proceed with the plan. -Amir   AmirSasan Mahjoor, P.G. Professional Geologist Engineering, Hydrology, and Geology Program 2600 Blair Stone Road, M.S. 3595 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Office: 850-245-8817 AmirSasan.Mahjoor@dep.state.fl.us   From: Lisa Daugherty [mailto:LDaugherty@kleinfelder.com]   Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 2:55 PM  To: Mahjoor, Amirsasan <Amirsasan.Mahjoor@dep.state.fl.us>  Cc: Whitehouse, Alan <Alan.Whitehouse@dep.state.fl.us>; Bill Newlon <bnewlon@kleinfelder.com>  Subject: Immokalee Sand Mine Soil Sampling Plan MMR 228414‐005    Hello Amir –    As follow up to our coordination with you regarding the sampling requirements, attached please find our proposed soil  sampling plan to address Item 8 of the FDEP RAI dated November 28, 2017. Please review this plan and provide  concurrence or feedback at your earliest convenience.  We are anticipating completing the sampling event in early  January in conjunction with another project in the area.    We look forward to receiving your feedback.    Thank you,   Lisa F. Daugherty, PMP  Project Manager  9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 2 1174 Camp Avenue  Mount Dora, Florida 32757  o|  352.383.1444 x 3004  m| 407.276.4653 (Please note new mobile phone number)  This email may contain confidential information. If you have received this email—including any attachments—in error, please notify the sender promptly and delete the email and any attachments from all of your systems.   The linked be displayehave been ren amed, oVerify that to the corrlocation.   9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) Attachment C Laboratory Analytical Report 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) Advanced Environmental Laboratories, Inc CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, Report ID: 531893 - 126376 Page 1 of 16 Matt Byrum Kleinfelder 8933 Western Way, Suite 12 Jacksonville, FL 32246 January 31, 2018 RE:Workorder:F1800228 SMI IMMOKALEE Dear Matt Byrum: Enclosed are the analytical results for sample(s) received by the laboratory on Friday, January 12, 2018. Results reported herein conform to the most current NELAC standards, where applicable, unless otherwise narrated in the body of the report. The analytical results for the samples contained in this report were submitted for analysis as outlined by the Chain of Custody and results pertain only to these samples. If you have any questions concerning this report, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Enclosures 13100 Westlinks Terrace, Unit 10 Ft. Myers FL 33913 Payments: P.O. Box 551580Jacksonville, FL 32255-1580 Phone: (239) 674-8130 Fax: (239) 674-8128 without the written consent of Advanced Environmental Laboratories, Inc. 3004.1.0.0 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) Advanced Environmental Laboratories, Inc CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, Report ID: 531893 - 126376 Page 2 of 16 SAMPLE SUMMARY Workorder:F1800228 SMI IMMOKALEE Lab ID Sample ID Matrix Date Collected Date Received F1800228001 SMI-PIP Water 1/12/2018 12:20 1/12/2018 13:50 F1800228002 SB-3 (0-1)- 20180111 Soil 1/11/2018 18:17 1/12/2018 13:50 F1800228003 GROVE COMP-20180111 Soil 1/11/2018 16:15 1/12/2018 13:50 13100 Westlinks Terrace, Unit 10 Ft. Myers FL 33913 Payments: P.O. Box 551580Jacksonville, FL 32255-1580 Phone: (239) 674-8130 Fax: (239) 674-8128 without the written consent of Advanced Environmental Laboratories, Inc. 3004.1.0.0 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) Advanced Environmental Laboratories, Inc CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, Report ID: 531893 - 126376 Page 3 of 16 ANALYTICAL RESULTS Workorder: F1800228 SMI IMMOKALEE 01/12/18 13:50 SMI-PIP Matrix: Water RegLmt Parameters Lab ID: Sample ID: RegLmt F1800228001 Results Units Adjusted DF AnalyzedMDLQual Date Collected: Date Received: 01/12/18 12:20 Sample Description:Location: Adjusted PQL Lab METALS Analysis Desc: SW846 6020B Analysis,Total Preparation Method: SW-846 3010A Analytical Method: SW-846 6020 Uranium 2.8 ug/L 0.201 0.070 1/26/2018 14:57 J Analysis Desc: SW846 7470A Analysis,Water Preparation Method: SW-846 7470A Analytical Method: SW-846 7470A Mercury 0.000014 mg/L 0.000101 1/18/2018 13:06I0.000011 J WET CHEMISTRY Analysis Desc: IC,E300.0,Water Analytical Method: EPA 300.0 Chloride 19 mg/L 5.01 1/13/2018 03:410.11 F Nitrate 2.6 mg/L 0.501 1/13/2018 03:410.017 F Nitrite 0.042 mg/L 0.501 1/13/2018 03:41U0.042 F Sulfate 54 mg/L 5.01 1/13/2018 03:410.11 F Analysis Desc: Tot Dissolved Solids,SM2540C Analytical Method: SM 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 100 mg/L 101 1/18/2018 16:1710 F 01/12/18 13:50 SB-3 (0-1)- 20180111 Matrix: Soil RegLmt Parameters Lab ID: Sample ID: RegLmt F1800228002 Results Units Adjusted DF AnalyzedMDLQual Date Collected: Date Received: 01/11/18 18:17 Sample Description:Location: Results for sample F1800228002 are reported on a dry weight basis. Adjusted PQL Lab METALS Analysis Desc: SW846 6010B Analysis,Soils Preparation Method: SW-846 3050B Analytical Method: SW-846 6010 Arsenic 0.13 mg/Kg 1.81 1/19/2018 11:12U0.13 M Cadmium 0.072 mg/Kg 0.301 1/19/2018 11:12I0.010 M Chromium 2.2 mg/Kg 0.301 1/19/2018 11:120.22 M Lead 1.9 mg/Kg 0.601 1/19/2018 11:120.063 M SEMIVOLATILES 13100 Westlinks Terrace, Unit 10 Ft. Myers FL 33913 Payments: P.O. Box 551580Jacksonville, FL 32255-1580 Phone: (239) 674-8130 Fax: (239) 674-8128 without the written consent of Advanced Environmental Laboratories, Inc. 3004.1.0.0 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) Advanced Environmental Laboratories, Inc CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, Report ID: 531893 - 126376 Page 4 of 16 ANALYTICAL RESULTS Workorder:F1800228 SMI IMMOKALEE 01/12/18 13:50 SB-3 (0-1)- 20180111 Matrix:Soil RegLmt Parameters Lab ID: Sample ID: RegLmt F1800228002 Results Units Adjusted DF AnalyzedMDLQual Date Collected: Date Received: 01/11/18 18:17 Sample Description:Location: Results for sample F1800228002 are reported on a dry weight basis. Adjusted PQL Lab Analysis Desc: FL-PRO Analysis, Soil Preparation Method: FL-PRO Analytical Method: FL-PRO TPH 12 mg/Kg 201 1/18/2018 02:16U12 M o-Terphenyl (S)94 %62-1091 1/18/2018 02:16 Nonatricontane-C39 (S)116 %60-1181 1/18/2018 02:16 Analysis Desc: 8270C-SIM Analysis, Soil Preparation Method: SW-846 3550B Analytical Method: SW-846 8270C (SIM) 1-Methylnaphthalene 0.0036 mg/Kg 0.00961 1/18/2018 01:20I0.0035 M 2-Methylnaphthalene 0.0035 mg/Kg 0.00961 1/18/2018 01:20U0.0035 M Acenaphthene 0.0030 mg/Kg 0.00961 1/18/2018 01:20U0.0030 M Acenaphthylene 0.0028 mg/Kg 0.00961 1/18/2018 01:20U0.0028 M Anthracene 0.0025 mg/Kg 0.00961 1/18/2018 01:20U0.0025 M Benzo[a]anthracene 0.0027 mg/Kg 0.00961 1/18/2018 01:20U0.0027 M Benzo[a]pyrene 0.0025 mg/Kg 0.00961 1/18/2018 01:20U0.0025 M Benzo[b]fluoranthene 0.0027 mg/Kg 0.00481 1/18/2018 01:20U0.0027 M Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 0.0067 mg/Kg 0.00961 1/18/2018 01:20U0.0067 M Benzo[k]fluoranthene 0.0023 mg/Kg 0.00961 1/18/2018 01:20U0.0023 M Chrysene 0.0027 mg/Kg 0.00961 1/18/2018 01:20U0.0027 M Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene 0.0076 mg/Kg 0.00961 1/18/2018 01:20U0.0076 M Fluoranthene 0.0024 mg/Kg 0.00961 1/18/2018 01:20U0.0024 M Fluorene 0.0030 mg/Kg 0.00961 1/18/2018 01:20U0.0030 M Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.0044 mg/Kg 0.00961 1/18/2018 01:20U0.0044 M Naphthalene 0.0062 mg/Kg 0.00961 1/18/2018 01:20U0.0062 M Phenanthrene 0.0024 mg/Kg 0.00961 1/18/2018 01:20U0.0024 M Pyrene 0.0022 mg/Kg 0.00961 1/18/2018 01:20U0.0022 M Nitrobenzene-d5 (S)50 %33-1341 1/18/2018 01:20 2-Fluorobiphenyl (S)57 %37-1271 1/18/2018 01:20 p-Terphenyl-d14 (S)72 %42-1411 1/18/2018 01:20 VOLATILES Analysis Desc: 8260B Analysis, Soil Preparation Method: SW-846 5035 Analytical Method: SW-846 8260B Benzene 0.00059 mg/Kg 0.00311 1/17/2018 17:36U0.00059 T Ethylbenzene 0.00034 mg/Kg 0.00311 1/17/2018 17:36U0.00034 T Methyl tert-butyl Ether (MTBE)0.0010 mg/Kg 0.00311 1/17/2018 17:36U0.0010 T Toluene 0.00042 mg/Kg 0.00311 1/17/2018 17:36U0.00042 T Xylene (Total)0.00048 mg/Kg 0.00621 1/17/2018 17:36U0.00048 T 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (S)110 %69-1341 1/17/2018 17:36 13100 Westlinks Terrace, Unit 10 Ft. Myers FL 33913 Payments: P.O. Box 551580Jacksonville, FL 32255-1580 Phone: (239) 674-8130 Fax: (239) 674-8128 without the written consent of Advanced Environmental Laboratories, Inc. 3004.1.0.0 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) Advanced Environmental Laboratories, Inc CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, Report ID: 531893 - 126376 Page 5 of 16 ANALYTICAL RESULTS Workorder:F1800228 SMI IMMOKALEE 01/12/18 13:50 SB-3 (0-1)- 20180111 Matrix:Soil RegLmt Parameters Lab ID: Sample ID: RegLmt F1800228002 Results Units Adjusted DF AnalyzedMDLQual Date Collected: Date Received: 01/11/18 18:17 Sample Description:Location: Results for sample F1800228002 are reported on a dry weight basis. Adjusted PQL Lab Toluene-d8 (S)82 %72-1221 1/17/2018 17:36 Bromofluorobenzene (S)109 %79-1261 1/17/2018 17:36 VOLATILES Analysis Desc: Percent Solids,SM2540G,Soil Analytical Method: SM 2540G Percent Moisture 19 %1 1/17/2018 13:33 M 01/12/18 13:50 GROVE COMP-20180111 Matrix:Soil RegLmt Parameters Lab ID: Sample ID: RegLmt F1800228003 Results Units Adjusted DF AnalyzedMDLQual Date Collected: Date Received: 01/11/18 16:15 Sample Description:Location: Results for sample F1800228003 are reported on a dry weight basis. Adjusted PQL Lab METALS Analysis Desc: SW846 6010B Analysis,Soils Preparation Method: SW-846 3050B Analytical Method: SW-846 6010 Arsenic 0.24 mg/Kg 0.531 1/17/2018 16:57U0.24 J Cadmium 0.19 mg/Kg 0.161 1/17/2018 16:570.033 J Chromium 6.0 mg/Kg 0.161 1/17/2018 16:570.074 J Lead 3.8 mg/Kg 0.531 1/17/2018 16:570.15 J SEMIVOLATILES Analysis Desc: 8081A Pesticide Analysis, Soil Preparation Method: SW-846 3550B Analytical Method: EPA 8081 4,4`-DDD 0.55 ug/Kg 3.41 1/16/2018 23:11U0.55 J 4,4`-DDE 0.42 ug/Kg 3.41 1/16/2018 23:11U0.42 J 4,4`-DDT 19 ug/Kg 6820 1/16/2018 15:11U19 J Aldrin 0.50 ug/Kg 3.41 1/16/2018 23:11U0.50 J Chlordane (technical)14 ug/Kg 341 1/16/2018 23:11U14 J Dieldrin 0.43 ug/Kg 3.41 1/16/2018 23:11U0.43 J Endosulfan I 0.53 ug/Kg 3.41 1/16/2018 23:11U0.53 J Endosulfan II 0.36 ug/Kg 3.41 1/16/2018 23:11U0.36 J Endosulfan Sulfate 0.62 ug/Kg 3.41 1/16/2018 23:11U0.62 J Endrin 0.93 ug/Kg 3.41 1/16/2018 23:11U0.93 J Endrin Aldehyde 0.56 ug/Kg 3.41 1/16/2018 23:11U0.56 J 13100 Westlinks Terrace, Unit 10 Ft. Myers FL 33913 Payments: P.O. Box 551580Jacksonville, FL 32255-1580 Phone: (239) 674-8130 Fax: (239) 674-8128 without the written consent of Advanced Environmental Laboratories, Inc. 3004.1.0.0 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) Advanced Environmental Laboratories, Inc CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, Report ID: 531893 - 126376 Page 6 of 16 ANALYTICAL RESULTS Workorder:F1800228 SMI IMMOKALEE 01/12/18 13:50 GROVE COMP-20180111 Matrix:Soil RegLmt Parameters Lab ID: Sample ID: RegLmt F1800228003 Results Units Adjusted DF AnalyzedMDLQual Date Collected: Date Received: 01/11/18 16:15 Sample Description:Location: Results for sample F1800228003 are reported on a dry weight basis. Adjusted PQL Lab Heptachlor 0.63 ug/Kg 3.41 1/16/2018 23:11U0.63 J Heptachlor Epoxide 0.46 ug/Kg 3.41 1/16/2018 23:11U0.46 J Methoxychlor 14 ug/Kg 6820 1/16/2018 15:11U14 J Toxaphene 480 ug/Kg 68020 1/16/2018 15:11U480 J alpha-BHC 0.57 ug/Kg 3.41 1/16/2018 23:11U0.57 J beta-BHC 0.39 ug/Kg 3.41 1/16/2018 23:11U0.39 J delta-BHC 0.40 ug/Kg 3.41 1/16/2018 23:11U0.40 J gamma-BHC (Lindane)0.60 ug/Kg 3.41 1/16/2018 23:11U0.60 J Tetrachloro-m-xylene (S)63 %42-1291 1/16/2018 23:11 Decachlorobiphenyl (S)77 %63-1301 1/16/2018 23:11 Analysis Desc: 8141A Org Phos Pesticide Analysis, Soil Preparation Method: SW-846 3550B Analytical Method: EPA 8141 Atrazine 13 ug/Kg 361 1/18/2018 02:22U13 J Azinphos-methyl 14 ug/Kg 361 1/18/2018 02:22U14 J Chlorpyrifos 9.8 ug/Kg 361 1/18/2018 02:22U9.8 J Chlorpyrifos-methyl 11 ug/Kg 361 1/18/2018 02:22U11 J Demeton 11 ug/Kg 361 1/18/2018 02:22U11 J Diazinon 11 ug/Kg 361 1/18/2018 02:22U11 J Dimethoate 11 ug/Kg 361 1/18/2018 02:22U11 J Disulfoton 7.9 ug/Kg 361 1/18/2018 02:22U7.9 J Ethion 10 ug/Kg 361 1/18/2018 02:22U10 J Ethoprop 8.5 ug/Kg 361 1/18/2018 02:22U8.5 J Famphur 13 ug/Kg 361 1/18/2018 02:22U13 J Fensulfothion 13 ug/Kg 361 1/18/2018 02:22U13 J Fonophos 10 ug/Kg 361 1/18/2018 02:22U10 J Malathion 11 ug/Kg 361 1/18/2018 02:22U11 J Merphos 10 ug/Kg 361 1/18/2018 02:22U10 J Methyl Parathion 7.7 ug/Kg 361 1/18/2018 02:22U7.7 J Mevinphos 14 ug/Kg 361 1/18/2018 02:22U14 J Parathion (Ethyl)11 ug/Kg 361 1/18/2018 02:22U11 J Phorate 9.7 ug/Kg 361 1/18/2018 02:22U9.7 J Phosmet 11 ug/Kg 361 1/18/2018 02:22U11 J Ronnel 9.3 ug/Kg 361 1/18/2018 02:22U9.3 J Simazine 11 ug/Kg 361 1/18/2018 02:22U11 J Tributylphosphate (S)115 %63-1111 1/18/2018 02:22 J Analysis Desc: 8151A Herbicides Analysis, Soil Preparation Method: 8151 Analytical Method: EPA 8151 2,4,5-T 9.2 ug/Kg 181 1/27/2018 15:00U9.2 J 13100 Westlinks Terrace, Unit 10 Ft. Myers FL 33913 Payments: P.O. Box 551580Jacksonville, FL 32255-1580 Phone: (239) 674-8130 Fax: (239) 674-8128 without the written consent of Advanced Environmental Laboratories, Inc. 3004.1.0.0 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) Advanced Environmental Laboratories, Inc CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, Report ID: 531893 - 126376 Page 7 of 16 ANALYTICAL RESULTS Workorder:F1800228 SMI IMMOKALEE 01/12/18 13:50 GROVE COMP-20180111 Matrix:Soil RegLmt Parameters Lab ID: Sample ID: RegLmt F1800228003 Results Units Adjusted DF AnalyzedMDLQual Date Collected: Date Received: 01/11/18 16:15 Sample Description:Location: Results for sample F1800228003 are reported on a dry weight basis. Adjusted PQL Lab 2,4-D 32 ug/Kg 541 1/27/2018 15:00U32 J 2,4-DB 19 ug/Kg 541 1/27/2018 15:00U19 J Dalapon 62 ug/Kg 1801 1/27/2018 15:00U62 J Dicamba 8.0 ug/Kg 181 1/27/2018 15:00U8.0 J Dichloroprop 29 ug/Kg 541 1/27/2018 15:00U29 J Dinoseb 13 ug/Kg 181 1/27/2018 15:00U13 J MCPA 1800 ug/Kg 90001 1/27/2018 15:00U1800 J MCPP 1800 ug/Kg 90001 1/27/2018 15:00U1800 J Pentachlorophenol 5.4 ug/Kg 9.01 1/27/2018 15:00U5.4 J Silvex (2,4,5-TP)6.3 ug/Kg 181 1/27/2018 15:00U6.3 J 2,4-Dichlorophenylacetic acid (S) 108 %46-1221 1/27/2018 15:00 J VOLATILES Analysis Desc: 8260B Analysis, Soil Preparation Method: SW-846 5035 Analytical Method: SW-846 8260B Ethylene Dibromide (EDB)1.5 ug/Kg 3.21 1/15/2018 11:15U1.5 J 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (S)102 %69-1341 1/15/2018 11:15 Toluene-d8 (S)107 %72-1221 1/15/2018 11:15 Bromofluorobenzene (S)117 %79-1261 1/15/2018 11:15 VOLATILES Analysis Desc: Percent Solids,SM2540G,Soil Analytical Method: SM 2540G Percent Moisture 6.7 %1 1/20/2018 13:38 J 13100 Westlinks Terrace, Unit 10 Ft. Myers FL 33913 Payments: P.O. Box 551580Jacksonville, FL 32255-1580 Phone: (239) 674-8130 Fax: (239) 674-8128 without the written consent of Advanced Environmental Laboratories, Inc. 3004.1.0.0 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 310Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) Advanced Environmental Laboratories, Inc CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, Report ID: 531893 - 126376 Page 8 of 16 ANALYTICAL RESULTS QUALIFIERS Workorder: F1800228 SMI IMMOKALEE PARAMETER QUALIFIERS The compound was analyzed for but not detected. The reported value is between the laboratory method detection limit and the laboratory practical quantitation limit. U I LAB QUALIFIERS DOH Certification #E82574(AEL-JAX)(FL NELAC Certification) DOH Certification #E82535(AEL-M)(FL NELAC Certification) DOH Certification #E84589(AEL-T)(FL NELAC Certification) J M T 13100 Westlinks Terrace, Unit 10 Ft. Myers FL 33913 Payments: P.O. Box 551580Jacksonville, FL 32255-1580 Phone: (239) 674-8130 Fax: (239) 674-8128 without the written consent of Advanced Environmental Laboratories, Inc. 3004.1.0.0 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) Advanced Environmental Laboratories, Inc CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, Report ID: 531893 - 126376 Page 9 of 16 QUALITY CONTROL DATA Workorder:F1800228 SMI IMMOKALEE QC Batch: QC Batch Method: DGMj/1037 SW-846 3050B Analysis Method:SW-846 6010 Prepared:01/16/2018 10:05 Associated Lab Samples:F1800228003 METHOD BLANK:2588125 Parameter Units Result Blank Limit Reporting Qualifiers METALS Arsenic 0.23mg/Kg 0.23 U Cadmium 0.032mg/Kg 0.032 U Chromium 0.069mg/Kg 0.069 U Lead 0.15mg/Kg 0.15 U QC Batch: QC Batch Method: MSVj/1070 SW-846 5035 Analysis Method:SW-846 8260B Prepared:01/15/2018 06:00 Associated Lab Samples:F1800228003 METHOD BLANK:2588146 Parameter Units Result Blank Limit Reporting Qualifiers VOLATILES Ethylene Dibromide (EDB)1.4ug/Kg 1.4 U 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (S)101%69-134 Toluene-d8 (S)99%72-122 Bromofluorobenzene (S)100%79-126 QC Batch: QC Batch Method: EXTj/1052 SW-846 3550B Analysis Method:EPA 8081 Prepared:01/16/2018 11:00 Associated Lab Samples:F1800228003 METHOD BLANK:2589105 Parameter Units Result Blank Limit Reporting Qualifiers SEMIVOLATILES alpha-BHC 0.54ug/Kg 0.54 U gamma-BHC (Lindane)0.57ug/Kg 0.57 U beta-BHC 0.37ug/Kg 0.37 U delta-BHC 0.38ug/Kg 0.38 U Heptachlor 0.60ug/Kg 0.60 U Aldrin 0.48ug/Kg 0.48 U Heptachlor Epoxide 0.44ug/Kg 0.44 U 13100 Westlinks Terrace, Unit 10 Ft. Myers FL 33913 Payments: P.O. Box 551580Jacksonville, FL 32255-1580 Phone: (239) 674-8130 Fax: (239) 674-8128 without the written consent of Advanced Environmental Laboratories, Inc. 3004.1.0.0 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) Advanced Environmental Laboratories, Inc CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, Report ID: 531893 - 126376 Page 10 of 16 QUALITY CONTROL DATA Workorder:F1800228 SMI IMMOKALEE METHOD BLANK:2589105 Parameter Units Result Blank Limit Reporting Qualifiers Endosulfan I 0.50ug/Kg 0.50 U 4,4`-DDE 0.40ug/Kg 0.40 U Dieldrin 0.41ug/Kg 0.41 U Endrin 0.89ug/Kg 0.89 U 4,4`-DDD 0.52ug/Kg 0.52 U Endosulfan II 0.34ug/Kg 0.34 U Endrin Aldehyde 0.53ug/Kg 0.53 U 4,4`-DDT 0.89ug/Kg 0.89 U Endosulfan Sulfate 0.59ug/Kg 0.59 U Methoxychlor 0.65ug/Kg 0.65 U Chlordane (technical)13ug/Kg 13 U Toxaphene 23ug/Kg 23 U Tetrachloro-m-xylene (S)59%42-129 Decachlorobiphenyl (S)72%63-130 QC Batch: QC Batch Method: WCAf/1036 EPA 300.0 Analysis Method:EPA 300.0 Prepared: Associated Lab Samples:F1800228001 METHOD BLANK:2589470 Parameter Units Result Blank Limit Reporting Qualifiers WET CHEMISTRY Chloride 3.8mg/L 0.11 I Nitrite 0.042mg/L 0.042 U Nitrate 0.017mg/L 0.017 U Sulfate 0.11mg/L 0.11 U QC Batch: QC Batch Method: EXTj/1063 SW-846 3550B Analysis Method:EPA 8141 Prepared:01/17/2018 09:00 Associated Lab Samples:F1800228003 METHOD BLANK:2589944 Parameter Units Result Blank Limit Reporting Qualifiers SEMIVOLATILES Mevinphos 13ug/Kg 13 U Demeton 10ug/Kg 10 U Ethoprop 7.7ug/Kg 7.7 U 13100 Westlinks Terrace, Unit 10 Ft. Myers FL 33913 Payments: P.O. Box 551580Jacksonville, FL 32255-1580 Phone: (239) 674-8130 Fax: (239) 674-8128 without the written consent of Advanced Environmental Laboratories, Inc. 3004.1.0.0 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) Advanced Environmental Laboratories, Inc CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, Report ID: 531893 - 126376 Page 11 of 16 QUALITY CONTROL DATA Workorder:F1800228 SMI IMMOKALEE METHOD BLANK:2589944 Parameter Units Result Blank Limit Reporting Qualifiers Phorate 8.8ug/Kg 8.8 U Diazinon 10ug/Kg 10 U Disulfoton 7.2ug/Kg 7.2 U Ronnel 8.5ug/Kg 8.5 U Methyl Parathion 7.1ug/Kg 7.1 U Chlorpyrifos 8.9ug/Kg 8.9 U Merphos 9.2ug/Kg 9.2 U Fensulfothion 12ug/Kg 12 U Azinphos-methyl 12ug/Kg 12 U Dimethoate 10ug/Kg 10 U Fonophos 9.2ug/Kg 9.2 U Chlorpyrifos-methyl 10ug/Kg 10 U Malathion 9.8ug/Kg 9.8 U Parathion (Ethyl)9.8ug/Kg 9.8 U Ethion 9.2ug/Kg 9.2 U Famphur 12ug/Kg 12 U Phosmet 10ug/Kg 10 U Atrazine 12ug/Kg 12 U Simazine 10ug/Kg 10 U Tributylphosphate (S)85%63-111 QC Batch: QC Batch Method: EXTm/1054 SW-846 3550B Analysis Method:SW-846 8270C (SIM) Prepared:01/17/2018 13:30 Associated Lab Samples:F1800228002 METHOD BLANK:2590633 Parameter Units Result Blank Limit Reporting Qualifiers SEMIVOLATILES Naphthalene 0.0050mg/Kg 0.0050 U 2-Methylnaphthalene 0.0028mg/Kg 0.0028 U 1-Methylnaphthalene 0.0028mg/Kg 0.0028 U Acenaphthylene 0.0023mg/Kg 0.0023 U Acenaphthene 0.0024mg/Kg 0.0024 U Fluorene 0.0024mg/Kg 0.0024 U Phenanthrene 0.0020mg/Kg 0.0020 U Anthracene 0.0020mg/Kg 0.0020 U Fluoranthene 0.0019mg/Kg 0.0019 U Pyrene 0.0018mg/Kg 0.0018 U Benzo[a]anthracene 0.0022mg/Kg 0.0022 U Chrysene 0.0022mg/Kg 0.0022 U Benzo[b]fluoranthene 0.0022mg/Kg 0.0022 U 13100 Westlinks Terrace, Unit 10 Ft. Myers FL 33913 Payments: P.O. Box 551580Jacksonville, FL 32255-1580 Phone: (239) 674-8130 Fax: (239) 674-8128 without the written consent of Advanced Environmental Laboratories, Inc. 3004.1.0.0 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) Advanced Environmental Laboratories, Inc CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, Report ID: 531893 - 126376 Page 12 of 16 QUALITY CONTROL DATA Workorder:F1800228 SMI IMMOKALEE METHOD BLANK:2590633 Parameter Units Result Blank Limit Reporting Qualifiers Benzo[k]fluoranthene 0.0019mg/Kg 0.0019 U Benzo[a]pyrene 0.0021mg/Kg 0.0021 U Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.0036mg/Kg 0.0036 U Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene 0.0062mg/Kg 0.0062 U Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 0.0054mg/Kg 0.0054 U Nitrobenzene-d5 (S)66%33-134 2-Fluorobiphenyl (S)72%37-127 p-Terphenyl-d14 (S)93%42-141 QC Batch: QC Batch Method: EXTm/1055 FL-PRO Analysis Method:FL-PRO Prepared:01/17/2018 13:30 Associated Lab Samples:F1800228002 METHOD BLANK:2590643 Parameter Units Result Blank Limit Reporting Qualifiers SEMIVOLATILES TPH 9.5mg/Kg 9.5 U o-Terphenyl (S)91%62-109 Nonatricontane-C39 (S)112%60-118 QC Batch: QC Batch Method: DGMj/1050 SW-846 7470A Analysis Method:SW-846 7470A Prepared:01/18/2018 09:30 Associated Lab Samples:F1800228001 METHOD BLANK:2591298 Parameter Units Result Blank Limit Reporting Qualifiers METALS Mercury 0.000011mg/L 0.000011 U QC Batch: QC Batch Method: DGMm/1032 SW-846 3050B Analysis Method:SW-846 6010 Prepared:01/18/2018 09:30 Associated Lab Samples:F1800228002 13100 Westlinks Terrace, Unit 10 Ft. Myers FL 33913 Payments: P.O. Box 551580Jacksonville, FL 32255-1580 Phone: (239) 674-8130 Fax: (239) 674-8128 without the written consent of Advanced Environmental Laboratories, Inc. 3004.1.0.0 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) Advanced Environmental Laboratories, Inc CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, Report ID: 531893 - 126376 Page 13 of 16 QUALITY CONTROL DATA Workorder:F1800228 SMI IMMOKALEE METHOD BLANK:2591464 Parameter Units Result Blank Limit Reporting Qualifiers METALS Arsenic 0.10mg/Kg 0.10 U Cadmium 0.0084mg/Kg 0.0084 U Chromium 0.18mg/Kg 0.18 U Lead 0.052mg/Kg 0.052 U QC Batch: QC Batch Method: MSVt/1072 SW-846 5035 Analysis Method:SW-846 8260B Prepared:01/17/2018 13:30 Associated Lab Samples:F1800228002 METHOD BLANK:2591671 Parameter Units Result Blank Limit Reporting Qualifiers VOLATILES Methyl tert-butyl Ether (MTBE) 0.0010mg/Kg 0.0010 U Benzene 0.00057mg/Kg 0.00057 U Toluene 0.00041mg/Kg 0.00041 U Ethylbenzene 0.00033mg/Kg 0.00033 U Xylene (Total)0.00047mg/Kg 0.00047 U 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (S)99%69-134 Toluene-d8 (S)84%72-122 Bromofluorobenzene (S)104%79-126 QC Batch: QC Batch Method: DGMj/1052 SW-846 3010A Analysis Method:SW-846 6020 Prepared:01/19/2018 03:30 Associated Lab Samples:F1800228001 METHOD BLANK:2591938 Parameter Units Result Blank Limit Reporting Qualifiers METALS Uranium 0.070ug/L 0.070 U QC Batch: QC Batch Method: WCAf/1063 SM 2540 C Analysis Method:SM 2540 C Prepared: Associated Lab Samples:F1800228001 13100 Westlinks Terrace, Unit 10 Ft. Myers FL 33913 Payments: P.O. Box 551580Jacksonville, FL 32255-1580 Phone: (239) 674-8130 Fax: (239) 674-8128 without the written consent of Advanced Environmental Laboratories, Inc. 3004.1.0.0 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) Advanced Environmental Laboratories, Inc CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, Report ID: 531893 - 126376 Page 14 of 16 QUALITY CONTROL DATA Workorder: F1800228 SMI IMMOKALEE METHOD BLANK: 2593975 Parameter Units Result Blank Limit Reporting Qualifiers WET CHEMISTRY Total Dissolved Solids 10mg/L 10 U QC Batch: QC Batch Method: EXTj/1106 8151 Analysis Method: EPA 8151 Prepared:01/23/2018 12:00 Associated Lab Samples: F1800228003 METHOD BLANK: 2597050 Parameter Units Result Blank Limit Reporting Qualifiers SEMIVOLATILES Dalapon 57ug/Kg 57 U Dicamba 7.4ug/Kg 7.4 U Dichloroprop 26ug/Kg 26 U 2,4-D 30ug/Kg 30 U Pentachlorophenol 5.0ug/Kg 5.0 U Silvex (2,4,5-TP)5.8ug/Kg 5.8 U 2,4,5-T 8.5ug/Kg 8.5 U 2,4-DB 17ug/Kg 17 U Dinoseb 12ug/Kg 12 U MCPA 1600ug/Kg 1600 U MCPP 1700ug/Kg 1700 U 2,4-Dichlorophenylacetic acid (S) 100%46-122 QUALITY CONTROL DATA QUALIFIERS Workorder: F1800228 SMI IMMOKALEE QUALITY CONTROL PARAMETER QUALIFIERS The compound was analyzed for but not detected. The reported value is between the laboratory method detection limit and the laboratory practical quantitation limit. U I 13100 Westlinks Terrace, Unit 10 Ft. Myers FL 33913 Payments: P.O. Box 551580Jacksonville, FL 32255-1580 Phone: (239) 674-8130 Fax: (239) 674-8128 without the written consent of Advanced Environmental Laboratories, Inc. 3004.1.0.0 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) Advanced Environmental Laboratories, Inc CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, Report ID: 531893 - 126376 Page 15 of 16 QUALITY CONTROL DATA CROSS REFERENCE TABLE Workorder:F1800228 SMI IMMOKALEE Lab ID Sample ID Prep Method Analysis MethodPrep Batch Batch Analysis F1800228003 DGMj/1037GROVE COMP-20180111 ICPj/1019SW-846 3050B SW-846 6010 F1800228003 MSVj/1070GROVE COMP-20180111 MSVj/1071SW-846 5035 SW-846 8260B F1800228003 EXTj/1052GROVE COMP-20180111 GCSj/1033SW-846 3550B EPA 8081 F1800228001 SMI-PIP WCAf/1036EPA 300.0 F1800228003 EXTj/1063GROVE COMP-20180111 GCSj/1050SW-846 3550B EPA 8141 F1800228002 SB-3 (0-1)- 20180111 WCAm/1121SM 2540G F1800228002 EXTm/1054SB-3 (0-1)- 20180111 MSSm/1027SW-846 3550B SW-846 8270C (SIM) F1800228002 EXTm/1055SB-3 (0-1)- 20180111 GCSm/1028FL-PRO FL-PRO F1800228001 DGMj/1050SMI-PIP CVAj/1010SW-846 7470A SW-846 7470A F1800228002 DGMm/1032SB-3 (0-1)- 20180111 ICPm/1033SW-846 3050B SW-846 6010 F1800228002 MSVt/1072SB-3 (0-1)- 20180111 MSVt/1073SW-846 5035 SW-846 8260B F1800228001 DGMj/1052SMI-PIP ICMj/1013SW-846 3010A SW-846 6020 F1800228003 GROVE COMP-20180111 WCAj/1102SM 2540G F1800228001 SMI-PIP WCAf/1063SM 2540 C F1800228003 EXTj/1106GROVE COMP-20180111 GCSj/10658151EPA 8151 13100 Westlinks Terrace, Unit 10 Ft. Myers FL 33913 Payments: P.O. Box 551580Jacksonville, FL 32255-1580 Phone: (239) 674-8130 Fax: (239) 674-8128 without the written consent of Advanced Environmental Laboratories, Inc. 3004.1.0.0 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) Page 16 of 16 Wednesday, January 31, 2018 3:09:57 PM 9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 319Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 331Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) CU-PL20190000808 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) CU-PL20190000808 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) CU-PL20190000808 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) CU-PL201900008089.A.1.ePacket Pg. 339Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 340Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 4365 Radio Road • Suite 201 • Naples, FL 34104 • P: 239.434.6060 • www.davidsonengineering.com Civil Engineering • Planning • Permitting D esigningE xcellence M E M O R A N D U M September 22, 2020 To: Timothy Finn, AICP Principal Planner, Collier County Zoning Division From: Sean Sammon, Planner Reviewed By: Jessica Harrelson, AICP, Senior Planner RE: EDWARDS GROVE ROAD MINE – CU PL20190000808 Neighborhood Information Meeting Summary Davidson Engineering conducted a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) for the subject Conditional Use on Thursday, July 23, 2020 at 5:30pm. The meeting was held at the Immokalee Sports Complex, located at 505 Escambia Street, Immokalee, FL 34142. Jessica Harrelson, AICP, with Davidson Engineering, was in attendance to represent the applicant and make a presentation. There were zero individuals from the public that attended the meeting (in-person). Three individuals, listed below, virtually participated in the meeting via Zoom: Zoom Participants: James Morris (jmcubsfan1988@gmail.com) Patty Swilley (junco_motorsports@msn.com) Rafael Jimenez (rafaele.jimenez@cemex.com) The following individuals, associated with the project, were in attendance: Jessica Harrelson, AICP, Davidson Engineering, Inc. (in-person) Sean Sammon, Davidson Engineering, Inc. (in-person) Ed Almedia, Stewart Materials (in-person) Rudd Jones, Stewart Materials (Zoom) Nick Stewart, Stewart Materials (Zoom) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 2 Jessica Harrelson, agent for the applicant, began the presentation at approximately 5:30p.m. and reviewed: • Request for application for Conditional Use • Review of the total site area, location, and zoning • Master Concept Plan o Development Area o Access and Circulation o Perimeter Landscape Buffers o Right-of-Way Reservation • Currently proposed conditions of approval Jessica communicated that currently the Conditional Use Application is still under review by County Staff, once application is deemed sufficient by all reviewers, it will move on to the Hearing process: first heard by the CCPC for recommendation and then move onto the BCC for final action. Jessica made known to everyone that they can contact her and/or the county planner for any additional information. Following the presentation, attendees were asked for questions or comments. No questions were asked, and any future questions were suggested to contact the planners by email directly. A copy of the PowerPoint presentation is attached. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Join by phone for Audio: 1.646.558.8656 Meeting ID: 955 6023 1837 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 TOTAL NEW SITE AREA: 450.7-ACRES 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 LOCATION SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATION R 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 ZONING AGRICULTURAL – MOBILE HOME OVERLAY- RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA OVERLAY 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 MASTER CONCEPT PLANDevelopment Area= ±422.5-acres 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 EXISTING INGRESS/ EGRESS (TO REMAIN) ON-SITE VEHICULAR CIRCULATION ACCESS & CIRCULATION 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Perimeter Landscape Buffers 10’ Type A 10’ Type A 10’ Type A 10’ Type A 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 ROW RESERVATION 200’ ROW RESERVATION 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1.The petitioner shall obtain a South Florida Water Management District Agricultural Surface Water Management Permit or permit modification for this site,if applicable. 2.The site shall be cleared of all exotic vegetation and maintained exotic-free in perpetuity. 3.Material hauling activities are permitted from 5:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.,Monday through Saturday. 4.The excavation shall be contained by a berm constructed to the height of the 100-year flood elevation.Unless the berm contains adequate clay content to slow the flow of water (as determined by the Collier County Transportation Engineering Division),the berm shall contain a membrane impervious to water. 5.The site shall be limited to a maximum of 49 pm peak hour,two-way trips based on the use codes in the ITE Manual on trip generation rates in effect at time of application for SDP/SDPA or subdivision plat approval,or based on an alternate methodology accepted by staff at time of application for SDP/SDPA in accordance with the County’s Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) guidelines in Resolution No.2006-299,as it may be amended. 6.Evidence of U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC)accepted mitigation for impacts to panthers,woodstorks,Florida black bear and other listed species will be required prior to excavation permit approval. 7.A littoral shelf planting area to commence during the reclamation phase of the project shall be shown on the excavation permit for this petition and shall meet the current standards of the Land Development Code at time of submittal of the Commercial Excavation Permit. 8.Prior to any vehicular use of the site,the owner shall post two (2)signs along the entry drive,clearly visible to vehicles entering and leaving the site,providing information regarding potential panther presence and notifying drivers of the need to use caution.Sign wording,placement and size will be subject to review and approval by the Collier County Environmental Staff.The owner shall submit,and receive approval,of the proposed signage in conjunction with the Commercial Excavation Application or other local development order as may be required,which may allow vehicular use of the site. 9.All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. 10.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. 11.The westernmost 200 feet of the parcel shall be reserved for right-of-way,for the purpose of the future Little League Road extension. 12.The petitioner shall be responsible for maintenance of Edwards Grove Road,from State Road 82 to the subject property line,for the duration of the mining operation.Edwards Grove Road shall be paved a minimum of 22 feet in width and a depth of 1.5 inches of asphalt or asphalt millings. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 AGENT: Jessica Harrelson, AICP Email: Jessica@davidsonengineering.com COUNTY PLANNER: Timothy Finn, AICP Email: Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine CU-PL20190000808 AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE I hereby certify that pursuant to Ordinance 2004-41, of the Collier County Land Development Code, I did cause the attached newspaper advertisement to appear and I did give notice by mail to the following property owners and/or condominium and civic associations whose members may be affected by the proposed land use changes of an application request for a Planned Unit Development Rezone and Growth Management Plan Amendment, at least 15 days prior to the scheduled Neighborhood Information Meeting. For the purposes of this requirement, the names and addresses of property owners shall be deemed those appearing on the latest tax rolls of Collier County and any other persons or entities who have made a formal request of the county to be notified. The said notice contained the laymen’s description of the site property of proposed change and the date, time, and place of a Neighborhood Information Meeting. Per the attached letters, property owner’s list, and copy of newspaper advertisement which are hereby made a part of this Affidavit of Compliance _________________________________________________ Jessica Harrelson, AICP State of Florida County of Collier The foregoing Affidavit of compliance was acknowledged before me this _22nd_ day of _September_______, 2020 by Jessica Harrelson, AICP, who is personally known to me. _____________________________________________ (Signature of Notary Public) (Notary Seal) Tocia Hamlin__________________________________ Printed Name of Notary 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 1 NAME1 NAME2 NAME3 NAME4 NAME6 BARRON COLLIER P'SHIP LLLP 2600 GOLDEN GATE PKWY # 200 NAPLES, FL 34105---3227 E & B MILLER FAMILY FLORIDA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP PO BOX 728 LABELLE, FL 33975---728 JOHNSON PLANTS INC 1255 N 15TH ST #7 IMMOKALEE, FL 34142---2859 RINKER MATERIALS WEST LLC 1501 BELVEDERE RD WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33406---1501 SOUTHWESTERN PROPERTIES LLC 2875 JUPITER PARK DR #1100 JUPITER, FL 33458---0 TIITF /ED UNIV FL UNIV OF FL EXP STATION % DEP DOUGLAS BLDG 3900 COMMONWEALTH BLVD TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399---3000 TIPPEN BAY PROPERTIES LLLP PO BOX 2357 LABELLE, FL 33975---2357 TURNER GROVES CITRUS LTD PRTNR ATTN: RICH CHOMA CONSOLIDATED CITRUS LTD PRTNR 3602 COLONIAL CT FORT MYERS, FL 33913---6636 IMMOKALEE CIVIC ASSOCIATION ATTN: MR. LEO RODGERS 502 E. NEW MARKET RD.IMMOKALEE, FL 34142---2859 Notice: This data belongs to the Collier County Property Appraiser's Office (CCPA). Therefore, the recipient agrees not to represent this data to anyone as other than CCPA provided data. The recipient may not transfer this data to others without consent from the CCPA. Petition: PL20190000808 | Buffer: 1000' | Date: 4/23/2020 | Site Location: 00065520004 and 00065680009 2020-05-27 LABELS- SPREADSHEET 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 4365 Radio Road • Suite 201 • Naples, FL 34104 • P: 239.434.6060 • www.davidsonengineering.com D esigningE xcellence Civil Engineering • Planning • Permitting June 26, 2020 Dear Property Owner, The public is invited to attend a Neighborhood Information Meeting, held by Davidson Engineering, Inc. on: Thursday, July 23rd, 2020 at 5:30 p.m., at the Immokalee Sports Complex, located at 505 Escambia Street, Immokalee, Florida, 34142 The subject site consists of two parcels, approximately 1.3 miles south of SR 82 and approximately 1 mile west of SR 29, in Section 18 and 19, Township 46 South, Range 29 East in Immokalee, Florida (see back for location map). A formal application has been submitted to Collier County seeking approval for the following: Edwards Grove Road Mine Conditional Use (CU-PL20190000808): To obtain a Conditional Use (CU) for a ±450.7-acre site, consisting of two separately owned parcels. The request is to expand the existing commercial excavation operation, known as Stewart Mining, to include the property adjacent to the west. This request will replace and repeal the existing Conditional Use on the Stewart Mining property. Business and property owners, residents and visitors are welcome to attend the presentation to discuss the project. If you are unable to attend the meeting in-person and would like the opportunity to participate virtually, an on-line Zoom meeting will be available. Reservations for in-person meeting attendance is required to ensure that the CDC guidelines for social distancing can be achieved and details related to joining the meeting via Zoom can be obtained by contacting the individual listed below. If you are unable to attend the meeting in-person or participate virtually, and have questions or comments, they can also be directed by mail, phone or e-mail to the individual below: Jessica Harrelson, AICP Davidson Engineering, Inc. 4365 Radio Road, Suite 201 Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-434-6060 Email: jessica@davidsonengineering.com 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) Edwards Grove Road Mine- Conditional Use PL20190000808 SIGN POSTING INSTRUCTIONS (CHAPTER 8, COLLIER COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE 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 fifteen (15) calendar days in advance of the first public hearing and said sign(s) must be maintained by the petitioner or the petitioner’s agent through the Board of County Commissioners Hearing. Below are general guidelines for signs, however these guidelines should not be construed to supersede any requirement of the LDC. For specific sign requirements, please refer to the Administrative Code, Chapter 8 E. 1.The sign(s) must be erected in full view of the public, not more than five (5) feet from the nearest street right-of-way or easement. 2.The sign(s) must be securely affixed by nails, staples, or other means to a wood frame or to a wood panel and then fastened securely to a post, or other structure. 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. If the sign(s) is destroyed, lost, or rendered unreadable, the petitioner or the petitioner’s agent must replace the sign(s) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - -- AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED AUTHORITY, PERSONALLY APPEARED JESSICA HARRELSON, AICP WHO ON OATH SAYS THAT HE/SHE HAS POSTED PROPER NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 10.03.00 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ON THE PARCEL COVERED IN PETITION NUMBER CU- PL20190000808. 4365 Radio Road, Suite 201 SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT OR AGENT STREET OR P.O. BOX Jessica Harrelson, AICP, Senior Planner, Davidson Engineering, Inc. Naples, FL 34104 NAME (TYPED OR PRINTED) CITY, STATE ZIP STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing instrument was sworn to and subscribed before me this 22nd day of September , 2020, by Jessica Harrelson, AICP, who is personally known to me and who did take an oath. Signature of Notary Public Tocia Hamlin Rosa Printed Name of Notary Public My Commission Expires: (Stamp with serial number) NOTE: AFTER THE SIGN HAS BEEN POSTED, THIS AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE SHOULD BE RETURNED NO LATER THAN TEN (10) WORKING DAYS BEFORE THE FIRST HEARING DATE TO THE ASSIGNED PLANNER. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) Experimental RD Revello ST State STO Quinn RDEdwards Grove RDJohnson RDLamm RD¯SR 29C R 8 46 C R 8 5 8CR 850IM MO K A L E E R D E SR 82 SR 29 N0 105Miles 0 0.50.25 Miles Stewart Materials, LLCSTEWART MATERIALS CU 2301 & 2315 Edwards Grove Rd,Immokalee, FL 34142 LOCATION MAP Z:\Active Projects\S\STEWART MINING\DWG\PLANNING\GIS\Stewart Mining CU location.mxd Date Saved: 12/19/2019 PROJECT: NOTES: EXHIBIT DESC: 4365 RADIO ROADSUITE 201NAPLES, FL 34104239-434-6060 CLIENT: LOCATION: Legend Subject property: ±450.7 acres 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road LEGEND EXPANSION SITE EXISTING MINE SITE SOURCES: COLLIER COUNTY GEOGR APHIC INFOR MATION SYSTEMS (2019)¯0 800400Feet Southwestern Properties, LLC &Tippen Bay Properties, LLLP LOCATION MAPSTEWART MATERIAL S 2301 & 2315 Edward s Grove Road C:\Users\Jessica.Harrelson.DE-LAN\Desktop\2020-03-23 STEWART M IN E.mxd Date Saved: 3/23/2020 PROJECT: NOTES: EXHIBIT DESC: 4365 RADIO ROA DSUITE 201NAPLES, FL 34104239-434-6060 CLIENT: LOCATION:Edwards Grove Road Mine 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 3/17/2017 Page 7 of 14 STATEMENT OF UTILITY PROVISIONS FOR CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST APPLICANT INFORMATION Name of Applicant(s): ___________________________________________________________ Address: ______________________________City: ___________ State: ________ ZIP: _______ Telephone: ____________________ Cell: _____________________ Fax: __________________ E-Mail Address: ________________________________________________________________ Address of Subject Property (If available): ___________________________________________ City: ________________ State: __________ ZIP: ___________ LEGAL DESCRIPTION Section/Township/Range: / / Lot: Block: Subdivision: _______________________________________________ Plat Book: Page #: Property I.D. Number: _________________________________ Metes & Bounds Description: _____________________________________________________ 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 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: ________ 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 3/17/2017 Page 8 of 14 If proposing to be connected to Collier County Regional Water System, please provide the date service is expected to be required: ____________________________________________ 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. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 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. 369 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 3/17/2017 Page 9 of 14 RECORDING OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS Within 30 days of adoption of the Ordinance, the owner or developer 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 F.S. §695. A recorded copy of the Memorandum or Notice shall be provided to the assigned Principal Planner, Zoning Services Department, within 15 days of recording of said Memorandum or Notice. 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. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) Historic Preservation/Forms/rev. 06/05/08 1 COLLIER COUNTY WAIVER APPLICATION FROM THE REQUIRED HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT DATE SUBMITTED: _______________ PLANNER: PETITION NUMBER ASSOCIATED WITH THE WAIVER: _____________________ (To Be Completed By Zoning and Land Development Review Staff) PROJECT NAME: STEWART MINING LOCATION: (Common Description) 2315 Edward Groves Road, Immokalee, FL. SUMMARY OF WAIVER REQUEST: The property is approximately 231.73-acres and has histocially been developed as a citrus grove (see attached 1968 aerial). Per the attached letters from Florida Master Site File, no previously recorded cultural resources are listed for the subject property. Due to the long standing history of citrus production onsite, there are no wetlands or native vegetative communities to be impacted by the conditional use of the site for sand mining excavation. (Properties located within an area of Historical and Archaeological Probability but with a low potential for historical/archaeological sites may petition the Community Development & Environmental Services Administrator County Manager or designee to waive the requirement for a Historical/Archaeological Survey and Assessment. Once the waiver application has been submitted, it shall be reviewed and acted upon within five (5) working days. The waiver request shall adequately demonstrate that the area has low potential for historical/archaeological sites.) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) Historic Preservation/Forms/rev. 06/05/08 2 SECTION ONE: APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNERSHIP DATA A. Name of applicant: Same As Owner Mailing Address: Phone: E-Mail: B. Name of agent(s) for applicant, if any: Anna Ritenour, Davidson Engineering, Inc. Mailing Address: 4365 Radio Rd, Suite 201, Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239.434.6060 E-Mail: anna@davidsonengineering.com C. Name of owner(s) of property: Southwestern Properties, LLC and Tippen Bay Properties, LLLP Mailing Address: 2875 Jupiter Park Dr, 1100, Jupiter, FL 33458 Phone: 561.972.4517 E-Mail: Rudd@stewartmaterials.com Note: If names in answers to A and/or B are different than name in C, notarized letter(s) of authorization from property owner (C) must be attached. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) Historic Preservation/Forms/rev. 06/05/08 3 SECTION TWO: SUBJECT PROPERTY DATA (Attach copy of the plat book page (obtainable from Clerk’s Office at the original scale) with subject property clearly marked.) A. Legal description of subject property. Answer only 1 or 2, as applicable. 1. Within platted subdivision, recorded in official Plat Books of Collier County. Subdivision Name: 2. If not in platted subdivision, a complete legal description must be attached which is sufficiently detailed so as to locate said property on County maps or aerial photographs. The legal description must include the Section, Township and Range. If the applicant includes multiple contiguous parcels, the legal description may describe the perimeter boundary of the total area, and need not describe each individual parcel, except where different zoning requests are made on individual parcels. A boundary sketch is also required. Collier County has the right to reject any legal description, which is not sufficiently detailed so as to locate said property, and may require a certified survey or boundary sketch to be submitted. B. Property dimensions: Area: square feet, or 231.7 acres Width along roadway: See attached survey Depth: See attached survey C. Present use of property: Vacant / Undeveloped AG Land D. Present zoning classification: A-MHO-RSLAO 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) Historic Preservation/Forms/rev. 06/05/08 4 SECTION THREE: WAIVER CRITERIA Note: This provision is to cover instances in which it is obvious that any archaeological or historic resource that may have existed has been destroyed. Examples would be evidence that a major building has been constructed on the site or that an area has been excavated. A. Waiver Request Justification. 1. Interpretation of Aerial Photograph The attached aerial shows an existing citrus grove. 2. Historical Land Use Description: CITRUS GROVE 3. Land, cover, formation and vegetation description: 221 Citrus Groves (219.5 acres, 94.7%) The majority of the site consists of an actively maintained citrus grove operation. Numerous features such as primitive roads and pump houses are associated with the grove. Vegetative cover within the citrus grove was dominated by planted orange trees (Citrus spp.). Ground cover consisted of a variety of ruderal species such as common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), crowfootgrass (Dactyloctenium aegyptium), dogfennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), natalgrass (Melinis repens), wild balsam apple (Momordica charantia), guineagrass (Panicum maximum), and Caesar-weed (Urena lobata). 513 Man-Made Ditches (11.3 acres, 4.9%) A network of ditches were observed throughout the site which appear to be used for water management purposes in association with the citrus grove. Ditches varied in size from approximately 2 to 20 feet in width. Ditches between grove sections were approximately 5-10 feet wide and a perimeter ditch along the western boundary was approximately 15-20 feet wide. Numerous risers and corrugated pipes connected grove ditches onsite but no off-site surface water connectivity was identified during the 20180455.001A-04 | MOU17O68573 Page 2 January 12, 2018 Copyright 2018 Kleinfelder site investigation. Small ditches approximately 2 feet in width were also present in between individual rows which appeared to assist with drainage. These ditches, however, had no indicators of regular hydrology, and as such, were included as part of the citrus grove instead of being mapped out separately. A shrub layer of colonial species was present along ditch banks which included eastern false-willow (Baccharis halimifolia), southern willow (Salix caroliniana), and Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius). Ground cover along the ditch banks was dominated by lantana (Lantana camara), guineagrass, primrose willow (Ludwigia peruviana), and Caesar-weed while a dense, 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) Historic Preservation/Forms/rev. 06/05/08 5 overgrown layer of primrose willow was observed within the ditch interiors. Little to no standing water was observed in the ditches at the time of the field investigation. 740 Disturbed Land (0.9 acres, 0.4%) A disturbed area of land was located within the northeastern most portion of the expansion area which appeared to be a staging, storage, and parking area for the citrus operation. Vegetation where present consisted of ruderal ground cover species such as beggar-ticks (Bidens pilosa), Bermuda grass, yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus), natalgrass, guineagrass, smutgrass (Sporobolus indicus), and Caesar-weed. 4. Other: ________________________________________________________ B. The County Manager or designee may deny a waiver, grant the waiver, or grant the waiver with conditions. He shall be authorized to require examination of the site by an accredited archaeologist where deemed appropriate. The applicant shall bear the cost of such evaluation by an independent accredited archaeologist. The decision of the County Manager or designee regarding the waiver request shall be provided to the applicant in writing. In the event of a denial of the waiver request, written notice shall be provided stating the reasons for such denial. Any party aggrieved by a decision of the County Manager or designee regarding a waiver request may appeal to the Preservation Board. Any party aggrieved by a decision of the Preservation Board regarding a waiver request may appeal that decision to the Board of County Commissioners. SECTION FOUR: CERTIFICATION A. The applicant shall be responsible for the accuracy and completeness of this application. Any time delays or additional expenses necessitated due to the submittal of inaccurate or incomplete information shall be the responsibility of the applicant. B. All information submitted with the application becomes a part of the public record and shall be a permanent part of the file. C. All attachments and exhibits submitted shall be of a size that will fit or conveniently fold to fit into a legal size (8 ½” x 14”) folder. Signature of Applicant or Agent: Anna Ritenour, AICP 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) Historic Preservation/Forms/rev. 06/05/08 6 ===================================================================== -TO BE COMPLETED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION- SECTION FIVE: NOTICE OF DECISION The County Manager or designee has made the following determination: Approved on: _____________ By:______________________________ Approved with Conditions on: ____________ By: _____________________________ (see attached) Denied on: _______________ By: ______________________________ (see attached) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 221 514 514 514 514 514 514 514 514 514 514 514 514 514 514 514 514 514 514 514 514 514 514 514514 514 514 514 514 514 514 514 740 221 221 221 221 221221 221 221 221 221 221 221221 221 221 221 514 160 Existing Land Use Map Stewart Materials, LLCImmokalee Sand MineConditional Use Permit ApplicationCollier County, Florida 2 20193253.001A 10/31/2019 NCD AWN 19-1031--SMI Immokalee-CUP-LandUse.mxdwww.kleinfelder.com PROJECT NO. DRAWN: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: FILE NAME: FIGUREThe information included on this graphic representation has beencompiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change withoutnotice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, expressor implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to theuse of such information. This document is not intended for use as aland survey product nor is it designed or intended as a constructiondesign document. The use or misuse of the information containedon this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using ormisusing the information. Sections 18 & 19, Township 46 South, Range 29 East Legend Conditional Use Permit Boundary (450.7 Ac.±) Existing Land Use Source: Land Use and Land Cover information prepared by Kleinfelder. The Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System Handbook, January 1999, was utilized to determine the specific land use classifications. 2019 2.0-foot Natural-Color Orthophotos obtained from Collier County Property Appraiser's Office.£ 1 inch = 500 feet 500 0 500250 Feet Document Path: \\mountdora\MOUNTDORA-DATA\GISCAD\Stewart Mining\_2019\20193253.001A_SMI Requested Services CY 2019\02-0000 Immokalee RS\19-1031--SMI Immokalee-CUP-LandUse.mxd; Plotted: 10/31/2019, 4:23:39 PM, NDePriest FLUCFCS CODE LAND USE ACREAGE % 160 Extractive 219.0 48.6 221 Citrus Groves 220.6 48.9 514 Man-Made Ditches 10.2 2.3 740 Disturbed Land 0.9 0.2Total450.7 100.0 FLORIDA LAND USE, COVER AND FORMS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM, 1999 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 1968 Aerial Image Stewart Materials, LLCImmokalee Sand MineConditional Use Permit ApplicationCollier County, Florida 3 20193253.001A 10/31/2019 NCD AWN 19-1031--SMI Immokalee-CUP-1968Aerial.mxdwww.kleinfelder.com PROJECT NO. DRAWN: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: FILE NAME: FIGUREThe information included on this graphic representation has beencompiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change withoutnotice. Kleinfelder makes no representations or warranties, expressor implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to theuse of such information. This document is not intended for use as aland survey product nor is it designed or intended as a constructiondesign document. The use or misuse of the information containedon this graphic representation is at the sole risk of the party using ormisusing the information. Sections 18 & 19, Township 46 South, Range 29 East Legend Conditional Use Permit Boundary (450.7 Ac.±) Source: Black & White Aerial Photography obtained from the FDOT, Surveying and Mapping Office, Image Services. Photograph Date: 1968. Source Scale: Unknown. Aerial Photography was rectified by Kleinfelder utilizing 1995 Color IR Photography acquired from Florida Department of Environmental Protection - LABINS. £ 1 inch = 500 feet 500 0 500250 Feet Document Path: \\mountdora\MOUNTDORA-DATA\GISCAD\Stewart Mining\_2019\20193253.001A_SMI Requested Services CY 2019\02-0000 Immokalee RS\19-1031--SMI Immokalee-CUP-1968Aerial.mxd; Plotted: 10/31/2019, 4:01:22 PM, NDePriest 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 500 South Bronough Street • Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 • www.flheritage.com/preservation/sitefile 850.245.6440 ph | 850.245.6439 fax | SiteFile@dos.state.fl.us This record search is for informational purposes only and does NOT constitute a project review. This search only identifies resources recorded at the Florida Master Site File and does NOT provide project approval from the Division of Historical Resources. Contact the Compliance and Review Section of the Division of Historical Resources at 850-245-6333 for project review information. November 6, 2019 Anna Ritenour Davidson Engineering, Inc. 4365 Radio Road Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239.434.6060 Email: anna@davidsonengineering.com In response to your inquiry of November 6, 2019 the Florida Master Site File lists no previously recorded cultural or historic resources in the following parcel of Collier County, Florida: Parcel ID: 00065520004 with a 500 foot buffer as shown on the corresponding map. When interpreting the results of this search, please consider the following information: • This search area may contain unrecorded archaeological sites, historical structures or other resources even if previously surveyed for cultural resources. • Federal, state and local laws require formal environmental review for most projects. This search DOES NOT constitute such a review. If your project falls under these laws, you should contact the Compliance and Review Section of the Division of Historical Resources at 850-245-6333. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions regarding the results of this search. Sincerely, Cody VanderPloeg Archaeological Data Analyst Florida Master Site File Cody.VanderPloeg@dos.myflorida.com 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, Copyright:©2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed, Source: Esri,DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS,USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Cultural Resource Search500 Foot BufferCollier County November 2019 ¯ 0 0.15 0.3 0.45 0.60.075 Miles Legend Parcel00065520004 %2 FloridaStructures Florida Sites HistoricalBridges HistoricalCemeteries National Register ResourceGroups 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 381Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) Stewart Mining CU – PL20190000808 Attachment “A” – Legal Description December 20, 2019 www.davidsonengineering.com LEGAL DESCRIPTION ATTACHMENT “A” A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER (SW ¼) OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST AND A PART OF THE NORTH ONE-HALF (N ½) OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 18 RUN N 00°25’14” W FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,331.53 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER (SW ¼) OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER (SW ¼) OF SAID SECTION 18; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID QUARTER-QUARTER LINE N 88°51'13" E 2,481.73 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID LINE S 00°55'38" E 2,658.69 FEET; THENCE N 89°04'22" E 84.00 FEET; THENCE S 00°35'34" E 1,352.26 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST-WEST QUARTER LINE OF SAID SECTION 19; THENCE ALONG SAID QUARTER LINE S 89°27'14" W 2,589.72 FEET TO THE WEST ONE-QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 19; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 19 N 00°29'38" W 2,652.80 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. THE ABOVE DESCRIBES AN AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 231.73 ACRES FEET OF LAND. AND A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST, AND THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, FURTHER DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, TO WIT: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST, THENCE SOUTH 00°11'07" WEST (BASIS OF BEARING IS ASSUMED) ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION A DISTANCE OF 2692.02 FEET TO A CONCRETE MONUMENT BEING THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 19; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 43'00" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER A DISTANCE OF 2340.90 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 12'54" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 1353.32 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 52'57" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 84.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 07'03" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 2658.62 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST/WEST QUARTER LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 39'50" EAST, ALONG SAID QUARTER, QUARTER LINE A DISTANCE OF 2448.79 FEET TO A CONCRETE MONUMENT BEING THE EAST QUARTER QUARTER OF SAID SOUTHEAST 1/4; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 12'15" WEST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SECTION 18, A DISTANCE OF 1345.64 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. LESS AND EXCEPT FROM SAID TRACT, THE EAST 30 FEET THEREOF. THE ABOVE DESCRIBES AN AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 9,538,320 SQUARE FEET OR 218.97 ACRES OF LAND 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) RESOLUTION NO A RESOLUTION PROVIDINGFOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CONDITIONAL USE I FOR EARTHMINING IN THE A MHO RURAL AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT WITH MOBILE HOME OVERLAY PURSUANT TO SECTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTIONS AND TOWNSHIP SOUTH RANGE EAST COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA WHEREAS the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter Laws of Florida and Chapter Florida Statutes has conferred on Collier County the power to establish coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public and WHEREAS the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code Ordinance No which includes a Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance establishing regulations for the zoning ofparticular geographic divisions of the County among which isthe granting of Conditional Uses and WHEREAS the Collier County Planning Commission being the duly appointed and constituted planning board for the area hereby affected has held a public hearing after notice as in said regulations made and provided andhas considered the advisability of Conditional Use of Section of the Collier County Land Development Code for earthmining inan A MHO Rural Agricultural Zoning District with Mobile Home Overlay on the property hereinafter described and has found as amatter of fact Exhibit A that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and inaccordance with Subsection of the Land Development Code tor the Collier County Planning Commission and WHEREAS all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard bythis Board in a public meeting assembled and the Board having considered all matters presented NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA that The petition filed by Jeff Davidson P E of Davidson Engineering Inc representing Stewart Mining Industries Inc with respect to the property hereinafter described as Exhibit B which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) ti be and the same is hereby approved for Conditional Use I ot Section of the Collier County Land Development Code in an A MHO Rural Agricultural Zoning District with Mobile Home Overlay for earthmining inaccordance with the Conceptual Master Plan Exhibit Cand subject to the following conditions Exhibit D which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein BEIT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution berecorded in the minutes of this Board This Resolution adopted after motion second and super majority vote Done this Zn lday ofBOAR OF NING COLLIE UNTY BY TOM HENNING CHAIRM ATTEST jDWlyHT E BROCK CLERK Atti IS ChlfrIIIJI S sfan lyre ll Approveo asJo Form andLegalSufficiencyb I A tL rnMal orMStudent Assistant County Attorney CU AR FRIsp 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) i ru FINDINGS OF FACT BY COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION FOR CU AR The following facts are found Subsection of the Land Development Code authorizes the conditional use Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and will notadversely affect other property or uses in the same districtorneighborhoodbecauseofAConsistencywiththeLandDevelopmentCodeandGrowthManagement Plan Yes f No B Ingress and egress toproperty and proposed structures thereon with particular reference toautomotive and pedestrian safety and convenience traffic flowandcontrolandaccessincaseoffireorcatastropheAdequateingressegressXYesNoCAffectsneighboringproperties inrelation to noiseglare economic or odor effects No affect or Affect mitigated by Affect cannot bemitigated D Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district Compatible use within district Yes V No Based on the above findings this conditional use should with stipulations copy attached should not be recommended for approval DATE y CHArRMAN iCjCTEXHIBITAr 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) CU AR DESCRIPTION as provided by client A tract of land located In the Southeast quarter of Section Township South Range and the Northeast quarter Section Township South Range East Collier County FI further described os follows to wit Beginning at the Northeast corner of Section Township South Range East thence S degrees West Basis for bearing assumed along the East line of said Section a dlstc of feet to a concrete monument being the East quarter comer of SectIon thence degrees West along the South line of the Northeast quarter a distance of fthence North degrees West a distance of feet thence South degrees West a distance of feet thence North degrees West a distance of f to apoint on the East West quarter quarter line of th e outheast quarter of Section Towr South Range East thence North degrees East along sold quarter quarter IIn distance of feet to a concrete monument being the East quarter quarter corner of so Southeast thence South degrees West olong the East line of SectIon a dlst of feet to the Point of Beginning LESS AND EXCEPT from sold tract the East feet thereof EXHIBIT B 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) l zfrCAeltiii URAL ZlNNG h lllllllllllillllIIIIraIIIPIIIIPIIIIIII I I II IINI II I I I I rF I I I IIIIIIIIIIIigs I I i l i U C IIfli Jol I I I eo I JI IaHi I I II IilIJhlnjiiif lil e ItikStmIiliiiirJrjIliffIm J IIiifj JiIrJlrfJfIrbiHd tg nJi r i ro alJ f t fr II IrUJ gisCIaJ o Oni t iItirfiITj l ftIJ a iiz iii p JtiJJf g I r i I l l J r J lII i Ill t F IntI J I il r i I j l l II I F j ft j t I if i i fl I rt I il i t I I i jt I t i Q f rf r J t CI f I i l r t i i el iIS f i Iiiiiiilu 9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 387Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road i CU AR CONDITIONS The Petitioner shall obtain a South Florida Water Management District Agricultural Surface Water Management Permit or permit modification for this site if applicable The site shall be cleared of all exotic vegetation and maintained exotic free in perpetuity The petitioner shall pave the access road from State Road to the subject property line prior to commencement of earthmining operations The pavement shall bea minimum of feet in width and a depth of inches of asphalt or asphalt millings The petitioner shall be responsible for maintenance of the access road for the duration of the operation Turn lanes on SR westbound left in eastbound right in shall be provided prior to commencement of earthrnining operations Excavation activities are permitted from AM until PM Monday through Saturday The excavation shall becontained by a berm constructed to the height of the year flood elevation Unless the berm contains adequate clay content to slow the flow of water as determined by the Collicr County Engineering Services Department the berm shall contain a membrane impervious to water A landscaped berm feet in height shall be constructed adjacent to parcels zoned residential within months of the adjacent parcel being rezoned The easternmost feet of the parcel shall be reserved for right of way and shall bedeeded to Collier County at no cost to Collier County within days of receipt of notification by the Collier County Transportation Services Department that the property is needed for the purpose of providing a right of way connection from Westclox Road to State Road EXHIBIT D 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 401 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 404 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 406 Attachment: Attachment D - Application-Backup Materials (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 407Attachment: Attachment E - Hybrid Waiver - Southwestern Properties LLC (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) As Vice President of J.R. Paul Properties, Inc., General Partner of Tippen Bay Properties, LLLP9.A.1.gPacket Pg. 408Attachment: Attachment F - Hybrid Waiver - Tippen Bay (14269 : PL20190000808 Edwards Grove Road Mine (CU)) 12/03/2020 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.2 Item Summary: ***Note: This item was continued from the November 5, 2020 CCPC meeting to the November 19, 2020 CCPC meeting and further continued to the December 3, 2020 CCPC Meeting.*** PL20200000564 PUDA - An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 05-46, the Bembridge Emergency Services Complex Community Facility Planned Unit Development (CFPUD) and Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD), to redesignate 5.11± acres of land from Tract A to Tract A-1; to increase the residential density from 6 to 16 units/acre for a maximum of 82 residential units on Tract A-1, using the affordable housing density bonus and to amend the master plan; and providing an effective date. The subject property consists of 39.82± acres and is located east of Santa Barbara Boulevard, north of Davis Boulevard (SR 84) in Section 4, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Timothy Finn, AICP, Principal Planner] Meeting Date: 12/03/2020 Prepared by: Title: Operations Analyst – Planning Commission Name: Diane Lynch 11/19/2020 3:54 PM Submitted by: Title: Manager - Planning – Zoning Name: Ray Bellows 11/19/2020 3:54 PM Approved By: Review: Planning Commission Diane Lynch Review item Skipped 11/19/2020 3:39 PM Zoning Diane Lynch Review Item Skipped 11/19/2020 3:39 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Diane Lynch Review Item Skipped 11/19/2020 3:39 PM Growth Management Department Diane Lynch Review Item Skipped 11/19/2020 3:39 PM Zoning Diane Lynch Review Item Skipped 11/19/2020 3:39 PM Planning Commission Edwin Fryer Meeting Pending 12/03/2020 9:00 AM 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 409 PUDA-PL20200000564; Bembridge Emergency Services Complex Page 1 of 16 Revised: November 9, 2020 STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION – ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: NOVEMBER 19, 2020 SUBJECT: PUDA-PL20200000564 BEMBRIDGE EMERGENCY SERVICES COMPLEX ______________________________________________________________________________ Owner/Applicant: Contract Purchaser: Agent: Collier County, a Political McDowell Housing Jessica Harrelson, AICP Subdivision of the State of Florida 3335 Tamiami Trail E Naples, FL 34112 Partners, LLC 601 Brickell Key Dr. Suite 700 Miami. FL 33131 Davidson Engineering, Inc. 4365 Radio Rd. Suite 201 Naples, FL 34104 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner is requesting that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application to amend Ordinance Number 05-46, as amended, the Bembridge Emergency Services Complex Community Facility Planned Unit Development (PUD). GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property consists of 39.82± acres and is located east of Santa Barbara Boulevard, north of Davis Boulevard (SR 84) in Section 4, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (see location map, page 2). PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The petitioner seeks to amend the Bembridge Emergency Services Complex Community Facility Planned Unit Development (CFPUD) and Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD), to redesignate 5.11± acres of land from Tract A to Tract A-1; to increase the residential density from 6 to 16 units/acre for a maximum of 82 residential units on Tract A-1, using the affordable housing density bonus and to amend the master plan. 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 410 Attachment: Staff Report - Bembridge PUDA (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) PUDA-PL20200000564; Bembridge Emergency Services Complex Page 2 of 16 Revised: November 9, 2020 9.A.2.aPacket Pg. 411Attachment: Staff Report - Bembridge PUDA (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) PUDA-PL20200000564; Bembridge Emergency Services Complex Page 3 of 16 Revised: November 9, 2020 SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: This section of the staff report identifies the land uses and zoning classifications for properties surrounding boundaries of Tract A-1 of the Bembridge Emergency Services Complex Community Facility CFPUD and RPUD: North: Undeveloped land with a current zoning designation of Santa Barbara Landings RPUD (7.0 DU/AC) that is approved for single family attached, duplex and multiple family dwellings South: Plans to develop a master county pump station, with a current zoning designation of Bembridge Emergency Services Complex Community Facility CFPUD and RPUD (6.0 DU/AC) that is approved for multi-family residential, emergency medical services, and educational plants then to the south is mostly undeveloped land with a gas station at the corner of Santa Barbara Blvd and Davis Blvd with a current zoning designation of Shoppes at Santa Barbara PUD and is approved for commercial uses East: Developed with a water management area then to the east developed with Calusa Park Elementary School with a current zoning designation of Bembridge Emergency Services Complex Community Facility CFPUD and RPUD (6.0 DU/AC) that is approved for multi-family residential, emergency medical services, and educational plants then to the east is developed with multifamily residential with a current zoning designation of Wildwood Estates (12.4 DU/AC) that is approved for residential and commercial uses West: Santa Barbara Boulevard, a six-lane arterial roadway, and then developed with a golf course and multi-family with a current zoning designation of Berkshire Lakes PUD (3.8 DU/AC) and is approved for commercial, golf course, single and multi- family, and open space/conservation Intentionally blank 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 412 Attachment: Staff Report - Bembridge PUDA (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) PUDA-PL20200000564; Bembridge Emergency Services Complex Page 4 of 16 Revised: November 9, 2020 Source: Davidson Engineering GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land-use decisions, such as this proposed amendment. 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 amendment petition. This petition is consistent with the GMP. Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject site is designated Urban, Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict. The purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide transitional densities between the Urban Designated Area and the Agricultural/Rural Area. Urban designated areas allow for both residential and non-residential uses. Non-residential uses lists 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 413 Attachment: Staff Report - Bembridge PUDA (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) PUDA-PL20200000564; Bembridge Emergency Services Complex Page 5 of 16 Revised: November 9, 2020 “Essential services as defined by the most recent Land Development Code” as an allowed use. This petition is consistent with the GMP. Transportation Element: In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicant’s July 8, 2020 (revised) Traffic Impact Statement for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) using the applicable 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.” Staff finding: According to the TIS provided with this petition the proposed 82 multi-family dwelling unit development will generate a projected total of +/- 50 PM peak hour, 2-way trips on the adjacent roadway segments of Santa Barbara Boulevard. The trips generated by this development will occur on the following adjacent roadway link: Link/Roadway Link 2019 AUIR LOS Current Peak Hour Peak Direction Volume/Peak Direction 2019 Remaining Capacity 76.0/Santa Barbara Boulevard Green Boulevard to Golden Gate Parkway D 2,100/North 480 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 414 Attachment: Staff Report - Bembridge PUDA (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) PUDA-PL20200000564; Bembridge Emergency Services Complex Page 6 of 16 Revised: November 9, 2020 77.0/Santa Barbara Boulevard Golden Gate Parkway to Radio Road C 3,100/North 1,086 78.0/Santa Barbara Boulevard Radio Road to Davis Boulevard C 3,100/ North 1,439 79.0/Santa Barbara Boulevard Davis Boulevard to Rattlesnake Hammock Road B 3,100/South 1,900 15.0/Davis Boulevard County Barn Road to Santa Barbara Boulevard C 2,200/East 606 70.0/Radio Road Livingston to Santa Barbara Boulevard C 1,800/East 653 71.0/Radio Road Santa Barbara Boulevard to Davis Boulevard B 1,800/West 951 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 Traffic Impact Statement (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 review staff has found this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME). The project site consists of 0.82 acres of native vegetation. A minimum of 0.12 (15%) acres of native vegetation will be preserved to meet the preservation requirement. 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. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading “Zoning Services Analysis.” Drainage: The proposed PUD Amendment request is not anticipated to create drainage problems in the area. Stormwater best management practices, treatment, and storage will be addressed through the environmental resource permitting process with the South Florida Water Management District. County staff will also evaluate the project’s stormwater management system, calculations, and design criteria at the time of site development plan (SDP) and/or platting (PPL). 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: Staff Report - Bembridge PUDA (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) PUDA-PL20200000564; Bembridge Emergency Services Complex Page 7 of 16 Revised: November 9, 2020 Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the petition to address environmental concerns. The Master Plan illustrates the minimum PUD preserve requirement; the required preserve is 0.12 acres (15% of 0.82 acres). The applicant has proposed to meet the preserve requirement in accordance with LDC 3.07.05. The size of the required preserve gives the petitioner the option to meet the preservation requirement offsite in accordance with LDC Section 3.07.05 H.1.f. No listed animal or plant species were observed on the property. Landscape Review: The applicant is seeking 3 deviations regarding landscape buffers. See Deviation Discussion below. Affordable Housing Review: Staff has reviewed the petition and accompanying Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement. The application seeks a density bonus of 12 units per acre in exchange for providing 100% of the residential units (82 units) as rental housing affordable to households earning less than 80% of the Area Median Income. Of the 82 units proposed, 13 will be restricted to tenants earning less than 50% AMI, 50 will be restricted to tenants earning between 51% AMI to 60% AMI, and the remaining 19 units will be restricted to tenants earning between 61% AMI to 80% AMI. Number Income Percent of Corresponding Affordable of Units Level Development Housing Density Bonus 13 50% 16% 7.6 u/a bonus 50+19 60-80% 84% 12.4 u/a bonus 82 100% 20.0 u/a bonus (capped at 12 u/a bonus max) Base density of 4 u/a + bonus density of 12 u/a = 16 u/a X 5.11 acres = 82 units The proposal meets the requirements of the Affordable Housing Density Bonus provisions on the LDC. Community and Human Services Division recommends approval of this project and the associated Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement. (See Attachment B) 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 and south wastewater service areas of the Collier County Water-Sewer District. Water and wastewater services are readily available via existing infrastructure along the project’s frontage on Santa Barbara Boulevard. Sufficient water and wastewater treatment capacities are available Zoning Services Review: The Bembridge Emergency Services Complex Community Facilities Planned Unit Development (CFPUD) and Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) totals ±39.82 acres and is located on the east side of Santa Barbara, south of Radio Road and north of Davis Boulevard. The intent of the Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUDA) is to request an increase in residential density from 6 units per acre to 16 units per acre, using the Affordable 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: Staff Report - Bembridge PUDA (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) PUDA-PL20200000564; Bembridge Emergency Services Complex Page 8 of 16 Revised: November 9, 2020 Housing Density Bonus, for a maximum of 82 residential units within the Bembridge Emergency Services Complex CFPUD/RPUD. The subject County-owned parcel (folio #00400246406) is ±5.1-acres, now designated as Tract “A-1” on the updated PUD Master Plan. Of the parcel’s total site area, 3.77-acres is allocated for the proposed Affordable Housing Development (Tract ‘A-1 Residential’) and the remaining 1.33-acres is allocated for the development of a future Master County Pump Station (Tract ‘A-1 Master County Pump Station’). Density is calculated utilizing the site’s total area of 5.1-acres (16 DU/A x 5.1 = 82 units). Via a public-private partnership, the future apartments (to be known as The Harmony on Santa Barbara) will be developed by McDowell Housing Partners, while the County maintains ownership of the 5.1-acre parcel. The apartment community will serve Collier County residents earning between 30 and 80 percent of the County’s area median income (AMI). The Developer agrees to target and market at least 10% of units for seniors, veterans, or special needs populations. The community will provide one, two- and three-bedroom apartments along with accessory recreational facilities. The request complies the County’s Growth Management Policies that encourage the development of affordable housing such as, “The goal of the Housing Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan is ‘to create an adequate supply of decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing for all residents of Collier County’. The development of private housing in Collier County is driven by an expensive housing stock; leaving a shortage of housing for low-income and working-class families. Thus, there is a need for the County to find way to encourage the provision of affordable-workforce housing for these families. 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”: 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of developmen t proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. Water transmission and wastewater transmission mains are readily available within the Santa Barbara Boulevard right-of-way, and there is adequate water and wastewater treatment capacity to serve the proposed PUD. Moreover, Staff has reviewed the proposed amendment and is of the opinion the uses and property development regulations are compatible with the development approved in the area in regard to traffic and drainage. 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 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 417 Attachment: Staff Report - Bembridge PUDA (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) PUDA-PL20200000564; Bembridge Emergency Services Complex Page 9 of 16 Revised: November 9, 2020 policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of conformity with the relevant goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP within the GMP Consistency portion of this staff report on page 4. 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, the proposed changes to the PUD do not affect the landscaping standards of the original PUD. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. No deviation from the required usable open space is being requested, and compliance would be demonstrated at the time of SDP or PPL. 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. 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. Moreover, Collier County has sufficient treatment capacity for water and wastewater services to the project. Conveyance capacity 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 adjacent Collier County Water- Sewer District potable 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. Five new deviations is proposed in connection with this request to amend the PUD. See deviations section beginning on page 12. Rezone Findings: 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 418 Attachment: Staff Report - Bembridge PUDA (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) PUDA-PL20200000564; Bembridge Emergency Services Complex Page 10 of 16 Revised: November 9, 2020 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 GMP. Comprehensive Planning staff determined the subject petition is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the (FLUM) and other elements of the GMP. 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 property is currently zoned PUD and would remain as such. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. This petition does not propose any change to the boundaries of the PUD. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The proposed change is not necessary; however, it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such changes because the petitioner wishes to include the proposed uses and development standards that are specific to the subject parcel. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The proposed PUD Amendment is not anticipated to 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., GMP consistent at the time of rezoning as evaluated as part of the GMP Transportation Element consistency review. Operational impacts will be addressed at t ime of first development order (SDP or Plat). Additionally, the project’s development must comply 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 419 Attachment: Staff Report - Bembridge PUDA (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) PUDA-PL20200000564; Bembridge Emergency Services Complex Page 11 of 16 Revised: November 9, 2020 with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The proposed PUD Amendment request is not anticipated to create adverse drainage impacts in the area; provided stormwater best management practices, treatment, and storage on this project are addressed through Environmental Resource Permitting (ERP) with the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). County staff will evaluate the project’s stormwater management system, calculations, and design criteria at the time of SDP and/or PPL. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. It is not anticipated the changes proposed to this PUD Amendment would seriously reduce light or air to the 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. The increase of residential density from 6 to 16 units/acre for a maximum of 82 residential units on Tract A-1, using the affordable housing density bonus is not anticipated to serve as a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent property. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare. If the proposed development complies with the GMP through the proposed amendment, then that constitutes a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed change 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. 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 420 Attachment: Staff Report - Bembridge PUDA (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) PUDA-PL20200000564; Bembridge Emergency Services Complex Page 12 of 16 Revised: November 9, 2020 The subject property can be used in accordance with existing zoning; however, the proposed uses cannot be achieved without amending the PUD. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County. It is staff’s opinion that the proposed uses, associated development standards, and developer commitments will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs of the community. 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. The 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 activity proposed by this amendment will have no adverse impact on public utilities facility adequacy. 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 Board during its advertised public hearing. DEVIATION DISCUSSION: The PUD was approved via Ordinance 05-46 with one deviation. The petitioner is now seeking to add five deviations. The deviations are directly extracted from PUD Section 4.12. The petitioner’s justification and staff analysis/recommendation for this deviation are listed below. Deviation #1: (Signs) 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 421 Attachment: Staff Report - Bembridge PUDA (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) PUDA-PL20200000564; Bembridge Emergency Services Complex Page 13 of 16 Revised: November 9, 2020 “Deviation #1 Subsection 5.06.00 of the LDC Signs - Deviation from Subsection 5.06.06.C.1 of the LDC, which limits the number of signs to one ground sign or one pole sign. Calusa Park Elementary School shall be permitted two entry signs with one being a marquee sign. Staff Recommendation: No modifications proposed, was previously approved by Ordinance 05- 46. Deviation #2: (Buffer Requirements) “Deviation #2 seeks relief from LDC section 4.06.02 C.4., “Type D Landscape Buffer,” which requires a 20-foot Type “D” landscape buffer along rights-of-way for developments of 15 acres or more, to instead allow a 15-foot wide Type “D” buffer on Tracts “A” and “A-1-Residential” along Santa Barbara Boulevard.” Petitioners Justification: The existing EMS Station site, located on Tract A of the PUD, has an existing 15’ Type D buffer to remain. This deviation request will solidify the existing 15’ Type D buffer on the EMS Station’s site and allow Tract A-1 to provide the same buffer for consistency. In addition, the existing water management lake and required lake maintenance easement, located on Tract B, creates development restraints on Tract A-1 and a 20’ Type ‘D’ buffer requirement would further reduce developable area and restrict on-site circulation needed for emergency services. The request for a reduction in width does not result in any negative impacts to the surrounding area. All required plant material will still be installed within the proposed 15’ Type ‘D’ Landscape Buffer. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff recommends APPROVAL, finding that, in compliance with LDC section 10.02.13.A.3., the petitioner has demonstrated that “the element may be waived without detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community” and LDC section 10.02.13.B.5.h the petitioner as demonstrated that the deviation is “justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations.” Deviation #3: (Buffer Requirements) “Deviation #3 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02 C.2., “Type B Landscape Buffer,” which requires a 15’ Type ‘B’ buffer between multi-family residential and a community facility, to instead allow a 7’ Type ‘B’ buffer along the eastern property line of Tract “A-1-Residential.” Petitioners Justification: The existing water management lake and required lake maintenance easements, located within Tract B, creates development restraints for Tract “A-1 Residential”; therefore, a reduction in the required buffer width is being requested. In addition, the reduction in width of the landscape buffer will allow the site to be to be designed/constructed to accommodate emergency service vehicles to easily circulate the site. A 7’ Type B buffer provides sufficient width for plant materials to be installed and does not create a negative impact to the surrounding area. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff recommends APPROVAL, finding that, in compliance with LDC section 10.02.13.A.3., the petitioner has demonstrated that “the element 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 422 Attachment: Staff Report - Bembridge PUDA (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) PUDA-PL20200000564; Bembridge Emergency Services Complex Page 14 of 16 Revised: November 9, 2020 may be waived without detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community” and LDC section 10.02.13.B.5.h the petitioner as demonstrated that the deviation is “justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations.” Deviation #4: (Parking Space Requirements) “Deviation #4 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.05.04. G., “Parking Space Requirements,” which requires parking spaces for offices/clubhouses to be parked at 50% normal requirements and accessory recreational facilities for multi-family projects, to instead require a total of four (4) parking spaces for the office/clubhouse and no additional parking spaces for the accessory recreational facilities on Tract “A-1”. Petitioners Justification: Per the actual parking demand, a total of four (4) parking spaces is sufficient for the office/clubhouse component of the proposed affordable housing development. Additional parking for the accessory recreational facilities is not needed due to the small size of the site (3.77-acres) and the compact design of the project. Sidewalks will be provided throughout, making the project a walkable/pedestrian friendly community. Parking requirements for the dwelling units will be met, as required by the Collier County Land Development Code Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that “the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety, and welfare of the community,” and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is “justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations.” Deviation #5: (Buffer Requirements) “Deviation #5 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02. C.4., “Type D Landscape Buffer,” which requires a 20-foot Type ’D’ landscape buffer along rights-of-way for developments of 15 acres or more, to instead allow a 10-foot wide Type ‘D’ buffer along Santa Barbara Boulevard and along the Roadway Easement for Tract B.” Petitioners Justification: The above requested deviation is to solidify existing conditions along the western and southern PUD boundaries for Tract B (Lake Tract) and is consistent with the approved plans for the water management lake. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: The as-built drawing for the lake on Tract B of the PUD, which was constructed as part of the Santa Barbara road widening project (see below), identifies an approved 10’ landscape buffer adjacent to Santa Barbara Blvd. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL, finding that, in compliance with LDC section 10.02.13.A.3., the petitioner has demonstrated that “the element may be waived without detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community” and LDC section 10.02.13.B.5.h the petitioner as demonstrated that 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 423 Attachment: Staff Report - Bembridge PUDA (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) PUDA-PL20200000564; Bembridge Emergency Services Complex Page 15 of 16 Revised: November 9, 2020 the deviation is “justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations.” Deviation #6: (Buffer Requirements) “Deviation #6 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.05.02 Exhibit ‘A’, “Off-Street Parking Design Standards,” which permits a 2’ vehicular overhang into any landscape buffer that is 10’ or greater in width, to instead allow vehicular overhang into the 7’ Type ‘B’ buffer along the eastern boundary of Tract “A-1-Residential.” Petitioners Justification: Through coordination with South Florida Water Management District, on-site pavement/impervious areas for the proposed affordable housing development have been reduced to the extent possible. To create a site plan that is designed with more green space, parking spaces abutting the eastern buffer are being planned at 16’ in length rather than 18’. Providing parking spaces at this length prevents the opportunity to provide wheel stops, which would prevent vehicular overhang into the 7’ Type ‘B’ landscape buffer. There are no negative impacts created by this deviation request. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that “the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety, and welfare of the 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 424 Attachment: Staff Report - Bembridge PUDA (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) PUDA-PL20200000564; Bembridge Emergency Services Complex Page 16 of 16 Revised: November 9, 2020 community,” and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is “justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations.” NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The applicant conducted a NIM on September 10, 2020 at New Hope Ministries located at 7675 Davis Boulevard, Naples, Fl. The meeting commenced at approximately 5:30 p.m. and ended at 6:17 p.m. The applicant’s agent explained the request for the proposed PUD Amendment. Jessica Harrelson, the agent, gave a PowerPoint presentation. It was discussed that the County entered into a private-public partnership and the applicant is requesting to increase the density from 6 to 16 units on the 5.1-acre parcel for a total of 82 units. The meeting was opened to attendees for questions. The concerns were height, traffic access points, too many apartments and rental units in the area, landscape buffers, increase of 30 units to 82 units, objection to affordable housing, too many affordable housing projects in the area. No commitments were discussed at this NIM meeting. A copy of the NIM materials are included in Attachment C. Currently there are no pending petitions at this location other than this PUDA. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION: 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 October 22, 2020. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the CCPC forward this petition to the Board with a recommendation of approval of the PUDA and of the Agreement Authorizing Affordable Housing Density Bonus. Attachments: A) Proposed Ordinance B) Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement C) Application/Backup Materials 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 425 Attachment: Staff Report - Bembridge PUDA (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 426 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) HFAC 10-22-20 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 427 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Bembridge Emergency Services Complex CFPUD & RPUD PUDA-20200000564 October 12, 2020 BEMBRIDGE EMERGENCY SERVICES COMPLEX A COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND SUPPORTING MASTER PLAN GOVERNING BEMBRIDGE EMERGENCY SERVICES COMPLEX, A COMMUNITY FACILITIES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE PREPARED FOR: COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSONERS And McDowell Housing Partners 601 Brickell Key Drive, Suite 700 Miami, FL 33131 PREPARED BY: Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc. 3106 South Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Jessica Harrelson, AICP Davidson Engineering, Inc. 4365 Radio Road, Suite 201 Naples, FL 34104 DATE REVIEWD BY CCPC DATE APPROVED BY BCC 9-13-2005 ORDINANCE NUMBER 2005-46 AMENDMENTS AND REPEAL 1998-06 EXHIBIT A Revised September 19, 2005 1 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 428 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Bembridge Emergency Services Complex CFPUD & RPUD PUDA-20200000564 October 12, 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE LIST OF EXHIBITS………………………………………………………………………………………………3 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE………………………………………………………………….………4 SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION……………………………...……..5 SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS……………………………...………7 SECTION III COMMUNITY FACILITIES AREAS PLAN………………………………….………109 SECTION IV GENERAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS…………………………...…….1514 2 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 429 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Bembridge Emergency Services Complex CFPUD & RPUD PUDA-20200000564 October 12, 2020 LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT A PUD MASTER PLAN 3 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 430 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Bembridge Emergency Services Complex CFPUD & RPUD PUDA-20200000564 October 12, 2020 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE The development of approximately 39.82± acres of property in Collier County, as a Community Facilities Planned Unit Development to be known as Bembridge Emergency Services Complex Community Facilities Planned Unit Development (Bembridge ESC CFPUD and RPUD) shall be in compliance with the goals, objectives and policies of Collier County as set forth in the Growth Management Plan (GMP), and implementing land development regulations. The Calusa Park Elementary School and auxiliary school facilities are subject to the Interlocal Agreement adopted in May 2003. The Calusa Park Elementary School and existing facilities shall also be considered consistent with the Growth Management Plan. The land uses of the CFPUD and the RPUD will be consistent with the growth policies, land development regulations and applicable comprehensive planning objectives of each of the elements of the GMP for the following reasons: 1. The subject property is within the Urban Mixed Use, Urban Residential Subdistrict Land Use Designation and located just north of Activity Center #6 as identified on the Future Land Use Map. Residential uses, government facilities and essential services are permitted within this designation. 2. The subject property is located within the residential density band of Mixed Use Activity Center Number 6 located at the intersection of Davis Boulevard and Santa Barbara Boulevard. As such, the subject property is eligible for 3 additional dwelling units per acre (DU/A). The projected density of 6 16 DU/A shall be calculated using Tract A-1’s total site area of 5.1-acres and is in compliance with the FLUE of the GMP based on the following relationships to required criteria: Base Density (Based on FLUE Density Rating System) 4.0 DU/A Bonus Density, proximate to an Activity Center 3.0 DU/A Affordable Housing Density Bonus 12.0 DU/A Total Permitted Density for Tract “A-1 Residential” 7.0 16.0 DU/A RPUD Density (calculated on undeveloped portion of Tract A only) 6.0 DU/A 16.0 DU/A x 5.1-acres = 82 maximum residential units 3. The subject property's location in relation to existing or proposed community facilities and services permits the development's intensity as required in Objective 2 of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE). 4. The project development is compatible and complementary to existing and future surrounding land uses as required in Policy 5.4 of the FLUE. 4.5. The project development will result in an efficient and economical extension of community facilities and services. 5.6. All final local development orders for this project are subject to Sections 6.02.00 and 10.02.07 of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). 6.7. The Bembridge ESC CFPUD and RPUD project is compatible with and complementary to existing and future surround land uses and is considered to be consistent with Policy 5.4 of the FLUE. 4 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 431 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Bembridge Emergency Services Complex CFPUD & RPUD PUDA-20200000564 October 12, 2020 SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION 1.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the location and ownership of the property, and to describe the existing conditions of the property proposed to be developed under the project name of the Bembridge ESC CFPUD and RPUD. 1.2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION The subject property is currently known as the Bembridge PUD, which is approximately 39.82± acres, located in Section 4, Township 50 South, and Range 26 East, and described as follows: The Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 4, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. Tax Folio Numbers: 00399840007, 00400246406, 00400246309 and 00400248006 1.3 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP The subject property is currently under the ownership of Collier County, 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, FL 34112, and the Collier County School District, 5775 Osceola Trail, Naples, FL 34109. 1.4 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AREA A. The project is located on the east side of Santa Barbara Boulevard approximately 2,906 feet south of Radio Road and 1,396 feet north of Davis Boulevard. B. The zoning classification of the subject property prior to the effective date of this approved CFPUD Document was Planned Unit Development (PUD). That PUD was approved by the Board of County Commissioners in 1998 (Ordinance 98-86) for residential and church use with a nursing home. Prior to that date it was designated Agricultural. C. Collier County Public Schools purchased 39.82± acres of the Bembridge PUD in January 2000 to build the Calusa Park Elementary School. In 2001 and 2002, Collier County purchased a 5.998± acre parcel and a 7± acre parcel from the School District of Collier County to build the ESC Center and EMS Station #1975 and water management lakes. D. The property has received the following approvals: 1. SDP approval for EMS Station #1975 (SDP-2003-AR-4786), May, 2004. 5 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 432 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Bembridge Emergency Services Complex CFPUD & RPUD PUDA-20200000564 October 12, 2020 1.5 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION The project site is located within the Lely Canal Sub-basin. Run-off from the site is routed to the Davis Boulevard swale via an improved easement along the eastern boundary of the Shoppes at Santa Barbara PUD, and then southerly from the Davis Boulevard swale system along County Barn Road, around the Royal Wood Development to a canal which is tied to the Lely Canal. The current permitted, pumped discharge will be replaced by a system of interconnected lakes designed for water quality treatment and run-off attenuation to pre-development rates. A water management lake will be constructed by the Collier County Transportation Division on five acres located in the southwest comer of this project, which will serve Santa Barbara Boulevard (6-lanes), residential uses, EMS Station #1975, and Calusa Park Elementary School. An existing detention lake is located in the central area of the project on the elementary school site. Elevations within the project site range from 9.5 to 10.5 feet above mean sea level. The site is within Flood Zone "X" as shown on FEMA Firm Panel 120067 0415. The soils on this site are primarily Boca fine sand and Pineda fine sand and are modified by development of the site. 1.6 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Bembridge ESC CFPUD and RPUD project is a multi-use project. Major uses consist of residential uses, those related to public safety (emergency medical services), the existing Calusa Park Elementary School and related auxiliary school facilities, and water management facilities which will serve these facilities and Santa Barbara Boulevard. 1.7 SHORT TITLE This Ordinance shall be known and cited as the “Bembridge ESC Community Facility CFPUD and RPUD Ordinance”. 6 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 433 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Bembridge Emergency Services Complex CFPUD & RPUD PUDA-20200000564 October 12, 2020 SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS 2.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to delineate and generally describe the project plan of development, relationships to applicable County ordinances, and the respective land uses of the tracts included in the project, as well as other project relationships. 2.2 GENERAL A. Regulations for development of the Bembridge ESC CFPUD and RPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this Document, the CFPUD and RPUD Planned Unit Development District and other applicable sections and parts of the Collier County LDC and GMP in effect at the time of building permit application. Where these regulations fail to provide developmental standards, then the provisions of the most similar district in the County LDC shall apply to the ESC Tracts "A", “A-1” and "B”. Tract "C", Calusa Park Elementary School and auxiliary facilities are subject to the Interlocal Agreement between the Collier County School District and Board of County Commissioners adopted in May 2003. B. Unless otherwise noted, the definitions of all terms in this Document have the same meaning as the definitions set forth in Collier County LDC. C. All conditions imposed and all graphic material presented depicting restrictions for the development of the Bembridge ESC CFPUD and RPUD shall become part of the regulations that govern the manner in which the Bembridge ESC CFPUD and RPUD site shall be developed. D. The provisions of Section 10.02.03.A.3.a. and b. of the Collier County LDC and the Interlocal Agreement (Adopted May 2003), where applicable, remain in full force and effect with respect to the development of the land which comprises the Bembridge ESC CFPUD and RPUD. E. The Master Plan is illustrated graphically as Exhibit A. The location, size and configuration of the individual water management features and development tracts shall be determined at the time of final site development plan approval with minor adjustments at the time of final plan approval, in accordance with Section 10.02.03 of the LDC. 2.3 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PLAN AND PROPOSED LAND USES A. The layout of streets and use of land for the various tracts is illustrated graphically by Exhibit A, the Master Plan. There shall be two three land use tracts (Tracts "A", “A-1” and "C") with necessary water management lakes, street rights-of-way, the general configuration of which is also illustrated by Exhibit A. Tract “A” represents the future residential area and Emergency Management Services building and related facilities. Tract “A-1” represents a future residential area on 3.77-acres and a Master County Pump Station on 1.33-acres, for a total 7 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 434 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Bembridge Emergency Services Complex CFPUD & RPUD PUDA-20200000564 October 12, 2020 site area of 5.1-acres. Tract "C" represents the existing Calusa Park Elementary School. An additional development tract, Tract "B" represents the lake and lake expansion area which will provides detention for stormwater runoff for this project and the Santa Barbara Boulevard road improvements. B.In addition to the various areas and specific items shown on Exhibit A, such easements as necessary (utility, private, semi-public, etc.) shall be established within or along the various tracts as may be necessary. 2.4 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT DENSITY OR INTENSITY OF LAND USE The EMS Station #1975 shall not exceed 7,000 square feet. Ancillary uses, such as heating, cooling, air conditioning mechanical equipment buildings and radio tower equipment areas, do not count towards this building area allocation. The gross residential project density shall be a maximum of 6.0 16.0 units per acre, based upon the undeveloped portion total site area of Tract A-1 only, subject to an Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement between the Developer and Collier County. (16.0 DU/A x 5.1-acres = 82 maximum residential units) 2.5 RELATED PROJECT PLAN APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS A.Final plans for all required improvements shall receive approval of the appropriate Collier County governmental agency to insure compliance with the Bembridge ESC CFPUD Master Plan, the Collier County Subdivision Code, and the platting laws of the State of Florida. B.Exhibit A, the Master Plan, constitutes the required PUD development plan. C.The provisions of Section 10.02.03 of the Collier County LDC, when applicable, shall apply to the development of all platted tracts, or parcels of land as provided in said Section prior to the issuance of a building permit or other development order. D.Appropriate instruments shall be provided at the time of infrastructural improvements regarding any dedications and method for providing perpetual maintenance of common facilities. 2.6 AMENDMENTS TO PUD DOCUMENT OR PUD MASTER PLAN Amendments may be made to the CFPUD and RPUD as provided in the Collier County LDC, Section 10.02.13.E. 8 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 435 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Bembridge Emergency Services Complex CFPUD & RPUD PUDA-20200000564 October 12, 2020 SECTION III COMMUNITY FACILITIES PLAN 3.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to identify permitted uses and development standards for areas so designated on Exhibit A, Bembridge ESC CFPUD Master Plan. 3.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION The CFPUD and RPUD provides for a maximum of 7,000 square feet of building area for permitted and accessory emergency operations uses, limited to an EMS use, as well as the existing Calusa Park Elementary School and a residential area, on 39.82± acres. Ancillary uses, such as HVAC and radio tower equipment areas, do not count towards this building area allocation. 3.3 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following: A.Permitted Principal Uses and Structures: 1.Educational plants (Tract "C") 2.Emergency medical services (Tract "A") 3.Residential units that are one-family and two-family dwellings, townhouse dwellings, garden apartment dwellings, and multi-family dwellings limited to 6 16 units per acre on Tract "A-1" only 4.Essential Services, inclusive of a Master County Pump Station (Tract “A-1”) B.Uses Accessory to Permitted Uses: 1.Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the principal uses including carports, garages, and utility buildings for residential uses within Tract A-1. 2.Residential and commercial uses of an accessory nature which are incidental and customarily associated with support of a principal use. 3.Accessories for residential use such as recreational uses and facilities including swimming pools, tennis courts, children's playground areas, tot lots, walking paths, picnic areas, recreation buildings/clubhouses, and basketball/shuffle board courts for residential uses within Tract A-1. 4.Temporary use of the site for public purposes in accordance with Section 10.02.06.G. the LDC. 5.Parking facilities (Tract “A”, Tract “A-1” and “C”). 6.HVAC plants and other like facilities (Tract “A”, Tract “A-1” and “C”). 7.Major maintenance and service facilities (Tract “A”, Tract “A-1” and “C”) 9 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 436 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Bembridge Emergency Services Complex CFPUD & RPUD PUDA-20200000564 October 12, 2020 3.4 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Minimum Lot Area: None required. B. Minimum Lot Width: None required. C. Minimum Yards: 1. Principal and Accessory Structures a. Perimeter of CFPUD Fifty (50) feet or ½ the building height, abutting residentially whichever is greater. zoned property b. Perimeter of CFPUD Twenty-five (25) feet or ½ the building height, abutting non residentially whichever is greater. zoned property. c. Waterfront Zero (0) feet to bulkhead or rip-rap at top or of Bank, otherwise 20 feet. D. Distance Between Principal Structures on the Same Parcel: A minimum 15 feet or one-half sum of the building heights as measured by the closest exterior building walls, whichever is greater. E. Distance Between Accessory Structures on the Same Parcel: A minimum of 10 feet between detached accessory structures and between accessory structures and principal structures. F. Maximum Building Height 1. Principal buildings shall not exceed 40 feet in height nor 3 stories, whichever is less. 2. Accessory structures shall not exceed 30 feet in height. 10 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 437 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Bembridge Emergency Services Complex CFPUD & RPUD PUDA-20200000564 October 12, 2020 3.5 RESIDENTIAL USE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Minimum Yards: 1. Yards along Santa Barbara Boulevard: Seventy (70) Fifty (50) feet for one (1) and two (2) story structures and one hundred fifty (150) feet for three story structures. 2. Yards from on-site lakes: twenty (20) feet 3. Yards for internal tracts (principal structures): Front - 30 feet or half the building height Side / Rear – 20 feet 4. Yards for internal tracts (accessory structures): Front - 10 feet Side/Rear - 5 feet B. Minimum Floor Area (residential units): 1. One bedroom units - six hundred (600) square feet. 2. Two bedroom units - eight hundred fifty (850) square feet. 3. Three bedroom units - eleven hundred (1100) square feet. 4. Four bedroom units - one thousand three hundred fifty (1350) square feet. C. Distance Between Principal Structures: 1. Between one (1) story structures - Ten (10) feet. 2. Between one (1) story and two (2) story structures - Fifteen (15) feet. 3. Between one (1) story and three (3) story structures - Twenty (20) feet. 4. Between two (2) story structures - Twenty (20) feet. 5. Between two (2) story and three (3) story structures - Twenty-five (25) feet. 6. Between three (3) story structures - thirty (30) feet. 7. Principal to accessory structures – ten (10) feet. D. Maximum Building Height: 1. Principal buildings shall not exceed 40 feet in height or 3 stories, whichever is less. 2. Accessory structures shall not exceed the height restrictions of the LDC. 3.6 PROVISIONS FOR OFF-SITE REMOVAL OF EARTHEN MATERIAL The excavation and stockpiling of earthen material in preparation of water management facilities or to otherwise develop water bodies is hereby permitted. Off-site disposal is also hereby permitted subject to the following conditions: A. Excavation activities shall comply with "clear and fill” application requirements pursuant to Subsection 4.06.04.A.1.a.iii of the LDC. Off-site removal shall be limited to 10% of the total 11 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 438 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Bembridge Emergency Services Complex CFPUD & RPUD PUDA-20200000564 October 12, 2020 volume excavated, but not to exceed 20,000 cubic yards as set forth in the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. B.All other provisions of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, shall apply. 3.7 LANDSCAPE BUFFERS, BERMS, FENCES, AND WALLS The following standards shall apply: A.Landscape berms shall have the following maximum side slopes: 1.Grassed berms 4:1 2.Ground cover berms Perimeter 3:1 Internal to project 3:1 3.Structural walled berms-vertical B.Landscape buffers, berms, gates, fences and walls may be constructed within the landscape buffer tract along the perimeter of the Bembridge ESC CFPUD boundary prior to preliminary subdivision plat and site development plan submittal. Sidewalks shall meet the requirements of Section 4.06.02.D.4 of the LDC. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to Collier County Community Development and Environmental Services (CDES) for approval prior to construction. C.Pedestrian sidewalks and/or bike paths, water management systems, drainage structures, and utilities may be allowed in landscape buffers as permitted by Section 4.06.02.D.4. of the LDC. D.A 15’ Type “D” buffer shall be provided along Santa Barbara Boulevard for the portion of Tract “A-1” that is developed with residential uses. 3.8 DESIGN GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS The Bembridge ESC CFPUD is intended to encourage ingenuity, innovation and imagination in the planning, design and development or redevelopment of relatively large tracts of land as set forth in Section 2.03.06. of the LDC. 3.9 GENERAL PERMITTED USES Certain uses shall be considered general permitted uses throughout the Bembridge ESC CFPUD. General permitted uses are those uses which generally serve the facilities. A.General Permitted Uses: 1.Essential services as set forth under Section 2.01.03 of the LDC. 2.Water management facilities and related structures. 3.Lakes, including lakes with bulkheads or other architectural or structural bank treatments. 4.Guardhouses, gatehouses, and access control structures. 12 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 439 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Bembridge Emergency Services Complex CFPUD & RPUD PUDA-20200000564 October 12, 2020 5. Temporary construction and administrative offices for authorized contractors and consultants, including necessary access ways, parking areas and related uses. 3.10 SIGNAGE All signs shall be in accordance with Section 5.06.00 of the LDC with the exclusion of signs for Calusa Park Elementary School which are subject to the provisions of Section 10.02.03.A.3.a. and b. of the Collier County LDC and the Interlocal Agreement of May 2003. Two entry signs for the Calusa Park Elementary School shall be permitted, if one is a marquee sign (see 4.13.F 4.12.1). 3.11 SIDEWALKS/BIKEPATHS A. Pursuant to Section 6.06.02 of the LDC and Section 3.6 and 4.9 of the Bembridge ESC CFPUD, sidewalks/bikepaths shall be permitted as follows: 1. An internal sidewalk shall be permitted within drainage easements. 2. Sidewalks may be located outside platted rights-of-way when located within a separate sidewalk easement. 3. Sidewalks may be located within landscape buffers and/or easements. 13 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 440 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Bembridge Emergency Services Complex CFPUD & RPUD PUDA-20200000564 October 12, 2020 SECTION IV GENERAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 4.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the development commitments for the Bembridge Emergency Services Complex CFPUD. 4.2 GENERAL All facilities shall be constructed in strict accordance with final site development plans and all applicable State and local laws, codes, and regulations applicable to this CFPUD in effect at the time of site plan submittal with the exclusion of Calusa Park Elementary School which is subject to the requirements in Section 10.02.03.A.3.a. and b. of the LDC and the lnterlocal Agreement of May 2003. Except where specifically noted or stated otherwise, the standards and specifications of Chapter 4 of the LDC shall apply to this project. The developer, its successor and assigns, shall be responsible for the commitments outlined in this Document. The developer, its successor or assignee, shall follow the Master Plan and the regulations of the CFPUD as adopted, and any other conditions or modifications as may be agreed to in the rezoning of the property. In addition, any successor or assignee in title to the developer, is bound by the commitments within this Document. 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.” (Section 125.022, FS) 4.3 CFPUD MASTER PLAN A. The Bembridge ESC CFPUD Master Plan (Exhibit A) is an illustration of the conceptual development plan. Tracts and boundaries shown on the plan are conceptual and shall not be considered final. Actual tract boundaries shall be determined at the time of site development plan approval. B. All necessary easements, dedications, or other instruments shall be granted to insure the continued operation and maintenance of all service utilities and all common areas in the project. 4.4 SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT/MONITORING REPORT AND SUNSET PROVISION A. Sunsetting. The Bembridge ESC CFPUD shall be subject to the sunset provisions of Section 10.02.13.D of the LDC, as amended. B. Monitoring Report: An annual PUD monitoring report shall be submitted pursuant to Section 10.02.13.F of the LDC. 14 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 441 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Bembridge Emergency Services Complex CFPUD & RPUD PUDA-20200000564 October 12, 2020 A. 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 Collier County. 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 their/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. 4.5 ENGINEERING A. All project development shall be consistent with the LDC. 4.6 UTILITIES A. Water distribution, sewage collection, and transmission systems shall be constructed throughout the project by the developer. Potable water and sanitary sewer facilities constructed within platted rights-of-way or within dedicated County utility easements shall be conveyed to Collier County, pursuant to Collier County Ordinance 04-31, as may be amended. B. Upon completion of the utility facilities, the facilities shall be tested to insure they meet Collier County utility construction requirements in effect at the time construction plans are approved. 4.7 WATER MANAGEMENT A. A SFWMD surface water management permit shall be obtained prior to approval of the site development plan. B. An excavation permit shall be required for the proposed lakes in accordance with the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. All lake dimensions shall be approved at the time of excavation permit approval. 4.8 ENVIRONMENTAL A. A minimum of sixty (60) thirty (30) percent open space of the PUD’s gross area of the portion of the site that is developed for residential purposes, as described in Section 4.02.01.B.2. of the LDC, shall be provided. 15 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 442 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Bembridge Emergency Services Complex CFPUD & RPUD PUDA-20200000564 October 12, 2020 B. An exotic vegetation removal, monitoring and maintenance plan for the site, with emphasis on the preserve/open space areas, shall be submitted to the Department of Environmental Services Staff for review and approval prior to final site plan/construction plan approval. C. This CFPUD shall be consistent with the Environmental Sections of the Collier County GMP and the Collier County LDC in effect at the time of final development order approval. D. Environmental permitting shall be in accordance with the State of Florida Environmental Resource· Permit Rules and be subject to review and approval by the Environmental Services Review Staff. Removal of exotic vegetation shall not be counted towards mitigation for impacts to Collier County jurisdictional wetlands. E. All approved agency (SFWMD, ACOE, FPWCC) permits shall be submitted prior to final plan/construction plan approval. F. The preservation requirement for Tract “A-1” shall be 15% of the existing native vegetation on-site and can be provided off-site per LDC Section 3.05.07 H.f.iii. (0.82-acres x 15% = 0.12- acres required) 4.9 TRANSPORTATION A. All traffic control devices, signs, pavement markings and design criteria shall be in accordance with Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards ( MUMS), current edition, FDOT Design Standards, current edition, and the Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices MUTCD), current edition. All other improvements shall meet the requirements of the Collier County LDC. B. Arterial level street lighting shall be provided at all access points. Access lighting shall be in place prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy (CO). C. All work within Collier County rights-of-way or public easements shall require a rights-of-way permit. D. The development shall be designed to promote the safe travel of all roadway users including bicyclists and shall provide for the safety of pedestrians crossing said roadways. Sidewalks shall be separated from vehicular traffic in accordance with recognized standards and safe practices, as determined by Collier County Transportation Services Staff. A. The maximum total daily trip generation for ‘Tract A-1 Residential’ shall not exceed 50 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.” 16 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 443 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Bembridge Emergency Services Complex CFPUD & RPUD PUDA-20200000564 October 12, 2020 4.10 ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Accessory structures shall be constructed simultaneously with or following the construction of the principal structure, except for a construction site administrative office. 4.1211 LANDSCAPING FOR OFF-STREET PARKING AREAS All landscaping for off-street parking areas shall be in accordance with Section 4.06.00 of the LDC in effect at time of building permit application. 4.1312 DEVIATIONS FROM LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE A.Deviation withdrawn B.Deviation withdrawn C.Deviation withdrawn D.Deviation withdrawn E.Deviation withdrawn F. 1. Subsection 5.06.00 the LDC – Signs Deviation from Subsection 5.06.06.C.1 of the LDC, which limits the number of signs to one ground sign or one pole sign. Calusa Park Elementary School shall be permitted two entry signs with one being a marquee sign. G.Deviation withdrawn 2.Deviation #2 seeks relief from LDC section 4.06.02 C.4., “Type D Landscape Buffer,” which requires a 20-foot Type “D” landscape buffer along rights-of-way for developments of 15 acres or more, to instead allow a 15-foot wide Type “D” buffer on Tracts “A” and “A-1- Residential” along Santa Barbara Boulevard. 3.Deviation #3 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02 C., “Landscape Buffers,” which requires a 15’ Type ‘B’ buffer between multi-family residential and a community facility, to instead allow a 7’ Type ‘B’ buffer along the eastern property line of Tract “A-1-Residential”. 4.Deviation #4 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.05.04. G., “Parking Space Requirements,” which requires parking spaces for offices/clubhouses to be parked at 50% normal requirements and accessory recreational facilities for multi-family projects, to instead require a total of four (4) parking spaces for the office/clubhouse and no additional parking spaces for the accessory recreational facilities on Tract “A-1”. 5.Deviation #5 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02. C.4., “Type D Landscape Buffer,” which requires a 20-foot Type ’D’ landscape buffer along rights-of-way for developments of 15 acres or more, to instead allow a 10-foot wide Type ‘D’ buffer along Santa Barbara Boulevard and along the Roadway Easement for Tract B. 6.Deviation #6 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.05.02 Exhibit ‘A’, “Off-Street Parking Design Standards,” which permits a 2’ vehicular overhang into any landscape buffer that is 10’ or greater in width, to instead allow vehicular overhang into the 7’ Type ‘B’ buffer along the eastern boundary of Tract “A-1-Residential”. 4.13 AFFORDABLE HOUSING A.As documented in the Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement, the Developer has agreed to construct 13 rental units for residents in or below the very low income category (50% or less of the County median income), 50 rental units for residents in the low income category (51 to 60% of the County median income) and 19 rental units for residents in the low to moderate income category (61 to 80% of the County median income). 17 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 444 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) SANTA BARBARA BLVD(160' PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY) ZONING: SHOPPES AT SANTA BARBARA PUD LAND USE: VACANT COMMERCIAL "TRACT B" EXISTING LAKE "TRACT C" CALUSA PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL "TRACT A-1" COUNTY PUMP STATION 15' TYPE "D" LANDSCAPE BUFFER ZONING: NEW HOPE MPUD LAND USE: RESIDENTIAL ZONING: BERKSHIRE LAKES PUD LAND USE: GOLF COURSE/RESIDENTIAL "TRACT A" EMS STATION ZONING: SANTA BARBARA LANDINGS RPUD LAND USE: PRESERVE ZONING: PLANTATION PUD LAND USE: RESIDENTIAL 15' TYPE "B" LANDSCAPE BUFFER 15' TYPE "B" LANDSCAPE BUFFER ZONING: WILDWOOD ESTATES PUD LAND USE: RESIDENTIAL 15' TYPE "B" LANDSCAPE BUFFER PEDESTRIAN INTERCONNECT PEDESTRIAN INTERCONNECT RIGHT-IN / RIGHT-OUT PARCEL BOUNDARY PARCEL BOUNDARY PUD BOUNDARY PUD BOUNDARY PUD BOUNDARY ROADWAY EASEMENT O.R. BOOK 1701, PAGE 600-601 0.12 ACRE PRESERVE "TRACT A-1" RESIDENTIAL 10' TYPE "D" LANDSCAPE BUFFER 10' TYPE "D" LANDSCAPE BUFFER 15' TYPE "D" LANDSCAPE BUFFER 1 4 3 25 5 6 4365 Radio Road, Suite 201 Naples, Florida 34104 P: 239.434.6060 Company Cert. of Authorization No. 00009496 NBEMBRIDGE EMERGENCY SERVICES COMPLEX CFPUD AND RPUD EXHIBIT A: PUD MASTER PLAN PAGE 1 OF 2 REVISIONS 1. REV. PER CC RAI COMMENTS - 7/13/2020 2. REV. PER CC RAI COMMENTS - 8/24/2020 3. REV. PER CC RAI COMMENTS - 10/12/202018 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 445 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 4365 Radio Road, Suite 201 Naples, Florida 34104 P: 239.434.6060 Company Cert. of Authorization No. 00009496 CURRENT ZONING: BEMBRIDGE EMERGENCY SERVICES COMPLEX CFPUD AND RPUD PROPOSED ZONING: BEMBRIDGE EMERGENCY SERVICES COMPLEX CFPUD AND RPUD CURRENT LAND USE: COMMUNITY FACILITIES/ESSENTIAL SERVICES/WATER MANAGEMENT PROPOSED LAND USE: COMMUNITY FACILITIES/ESSENTIAL SERVICES/WATER MANAGEMENT/RESIDENTIAL FUTURE LAND USE: URBAN RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT PLANNING NOTES:OPEN SPACE SUMMARY REQUIRED OPEN SPACE (39.82 AC X 30% = 11.95 AC) ·OPEN SPACE TO BE DETERMINED AT TIME OF SDP PERMITTING. DEVIATIONS 1.SUBSECTION 5.06.00 THE LDC - SIGNS DEVIATION FROM SUBSECTION 5.06.06.C.1 OF THE LDC, WHICH LIMITS THE NUMBER OF SIGNS TO ONE GROUND SIGN OR ONE POLE SIGN. CALUSA PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SHALL BE PERMITTED TWO ENTRY SIGNS WITH ONE BEING A MARQUEE SIGN. 2.DEVIATION #2 SEEKS RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 4.06.02 C.4., “TYPE D LANDSCAPE BUFFER,” WHICH REQUIRES A 20-FOOT TYPE “D” LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG RIGHTS-OF-WAY FOR DEVELOPMENTS OF 15 ACRES OR MORE, TO INSTEAD ALLOW A 15-FOOT WIDE TYPE “D” BUFFER ON TRACTS “A” AND “A-1-RESIDENTIAL” ALONG SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD. 3.DEVIATION #3 SEEKS RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 4.06.02 C.2., “TYPE B LANDSCAPE BUFFER,” WHICH REQUIRES A 15' TYPE 'B' BUFFER BETWEEN MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND A COMMUNITY FACILITY, TO INSTEAD ALLOW A 7' TYPE 'B' BUFFER ALONG THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE OF TRACT “A-1-RESIDENTIAL”. 4.DEVIATION #4 SEEKS RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 4.05.04. G., “PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENTS,” WHICH REQUIRES PARKING SPACES FOR OFFICES/CLUBHOUSES TO BE PARKED AT 50% NORMAL REQUIREMENTS AND ACCESSORY RECREATIONAL FACILITIES FOR MULTI-FAMILY PROJECTS, TO INSTEAD REQUIRE A TOTAL OF FOUR (4) PARKING SPACES FOR THE OFFICE/CLUBHOUSE AND NO ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES FOR THE ACCESSORY RECREATIONAL FACILITIES ON TRACT “A-1”. 5.DEVIATION #5 SEEKS RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 4.06.02. C.4., “TYPE D LANDSCAPE BUFFER,” WHICH REQUIRES A 20-FOOT TYPE 'D' LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG RIGHTS-OF-WAY FOR DEVELOPMENTS OF 15 ACRES OR MORE, TO INSTEAD ALLOW A 10-FOOT WIDE TYPE 'D' BUFFER ALONG SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD AND ALONG THE ROADWAY EASEMENT FOR TRACT B. 6.DEVIATION #6 SEEKS RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 4.05.02 EXHIBIT 'A', “OFF-STREET PARKING DESIGN STANDARDS,” WHICH PERMITS A 2' VEHICULAR OVERHANG INTO ANY LANDSCAPE BUFFER THAT IS 10' OR GREATER IN WIDTH, TO INSTEAD ALLOW VEHICULAR OVERHANG INTO THE 7' TYPE 'B' BUFFER ALONG THE EASTERN BOUNDARY OF TRACT “A-1-RESIDENTIAL”. TRACT A (EMS STATION): 7,000 SF FOR PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE TRACT A-1 (RESIDENTIAL): 82 RESIDENTIAL UNITS NOTE: REMAINING TRACTS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO A MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY: 15% OF EXISTING NATIVE VEGETATION = 0.15 * 0.82 AC = 0.12 AC PER LDC SECTION 3.05.07 H.f.iii., PRESERVE REQUIREMENT MAY BE PROVIDED OFF-SITE. PRESERVE CALCULATION (TRACT 'A-1'): BEMBRIDGE EMERGENCY SERVICES COMPLEX CFPUD AND RPUD EXHIBIT A: PUD MASTER PLAN PAGE 2 OF 2 REVISIONS 1. REV. PER CC RAI COMMENTS - 7/13/2020 2. REV. PER CC RAI COMMENTS - 8/24/2020 3. REV. PER CC RAI COMMENTS - 10/12/202019 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 446 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 447Attachment: Attachment B - Affordable Housing Agreement (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 448Attachment: Attachment B - Affordable Housing Agreement (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 449Attachment: Attachment B - Affordable Housing Agreement (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 450Attachment: Attachment B - Affordable Housing Agreement (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 451Attachment: Attachment B - Affordable Housing Agreement (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 452Attachment: Attachment B - Affordable Housing Agreement (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 453Attachment: Attachment B - Affordable Housing Agreement (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 454Attachment: Attachment B - Affordable Housing Agreement (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 455Attachment: Attachment B - Affordable Housing Agreement (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 456Attachment: Attachment B - Affordable Housing Agreement (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 457Attachment: Attachment B - Affordable Housing Agreement (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 458Attachment: Attachment B - Affordable Housing Agreement (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 459Attachment: Attachment B - Affordable Housing Agreement (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 460Attachment: Attachment B - Affordable Housing Agreement (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 461Attachment: Attachment B - Affordable Housing Agreement (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 462Attachment: Attachment B - Affordable Housing Agreement (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 463Attachment: Attachment B - Affordable Housing Agreement (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 464Attachment: Attachment B - Affordable Housing Agreement (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 465Attachment: Attachment B - Affordable Housing Agreement (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 466Attachment: Attachment B - Affordable Housing Agreement (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 467Attachment: Attachment B - Affordable Housing Agreement (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 468Attachment: Attachment B - Affordable Housing Agreement (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 469Attachment: Attachment B - Affordable Housing Agreement (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 470Attachment: Attachment B - Affordable Housing Agreement (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 471Attachment: Attachment B - Affordable Housing Agreement (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 472Attachment: Attachment B - Affordable Housing Agreement (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.collierĐŽƵŶƚLJ͘ŐŽǀ (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 0DUFK 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 Collier County, a Political Subdivision of the State of Florida and McDowell Housing Partners, LLC 601 Brickell Key Drive, Suite 700 Miami FL 33131 786-257-2767 cshear@mcdhousing.com Jessica Harrelson, AICP Davidson Engineering, Inc. 4365 Radio Rd, Suite 201 Naples FL 34104 239.434.6060 jessica@davidsonengineering.com 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 473 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ǁǁǁ͘ĐŽůůŝĞƌĐŽƵŶƚLJ͘ŐŽǀ (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 0DUFK 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: x 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; x 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 x 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: ________________ CFPUD and RPUD CFPUD & RPUD Calusa Park Elementary, EMS Station and Undeveloped Addition of Affordable Housing Bembridge Emergency Services Complex CFPUD and RPUD 2005-46 45026 See attached survey and legal description 00400246406 varies varies 222,591.6 5.1 Located on the east side of Santa Barbara Boulevard, west of Calusa Park Elementary, north of EMS Station #75 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 474 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ǁǁǁ͘ĐŽůůŝĞƌĐŽƵŶƚLJ͘ŐŽǀ (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 0DUFK 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: ______ Santa Barbara Landings RPUD Developed & Undeveloped Residential Shoppes at Santa Barbara PUD / New Hope MPUD Undeveloped & Developed Residential (Legacy) Wildwood Estates PUD Developed Residential ROW / Berkshire Lakes PUD Santa Barbara Blvd / Developed Residential & Golf Course Countryside Master Association, Inc. 600 Countryside Drive Naples FL 34104 Plantation Homeowners' Association of Collier County Inc. c/o Gulf Breeze Mngt Services, LLC 8910 Terrence Ct, Suite 200 Bonita Springs FL 34135 Legacy Naples,LLC 25101 Chagrin Blvd, Suite 300 Beachwood OH 44122 The Enclave Homeowners' Association, Inc. 27180 Bay Landing Drive, Suite 4 Bonita Springs FL 34135 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 475 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ǁǁǁ͘ĐŽůůŝĞƌĐŽƵŶƚLJ͘ŐŽǀ (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 0DUFK 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 ascertain whether or not the request is affected by existing deed restrictions. ^ĞĞĂƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ͘ 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 476 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ǁǁǁ͘ĐŽůůŝĞƌĐŽƵŶƚLJ͘ŐŽǀ (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 0DUFK 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. N/A 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 477 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ǁǁǁ͘ĐŽůůŝĞƌĐŽƵŶƚLJ͘ŐŽǀ (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 0DUFK 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: ____________________________________________________ McDowell Housing Partners 601 Brickell Key Drive, Suite 700 Miami FL 33131 786.257.2767 cshear@mcdhousing.com N/A Naples FL 45026 N/A See Survey 00400246406 X Collier County X Collier County 205 38,745 28,700 27,675 20,500 2/2021 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 478 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ǁǁǁ͘ĐŽůůŝĞƌĐŽƵŶƚLJ͘ŐŽǀ (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 0DUFK 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. N/A ACKNOWLEDGED. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 479 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 480 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 481 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ǁǁǁ͘ĐŽůůŝĞƌĐŽƵŶƚLJ͘ŐŽǀ (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 0DUFK 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 1 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 X X X X X X X X X 1X X X X X X X X 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 482 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ǁǁǁ͘ĐŽůůŝĞƌĐŽƵŶƚLJ͘ŐŽǀ (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 0DUFK 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 (Director) Emergency Management: Dan Summers Immokalee Water/Sewer District: City of Naples: Robin Singer, Planning Director Other: City of Naples Utilities 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 X X X X ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 483 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 0DUFK Page 11 of 11 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ǁǁǁ͘ĐŽůůŝĞƌĐŽƵŶƚLJ͘ŐŽǀ Legal Advertising Fees: o CCPC: $1,125.00 o BCC: $500.00 School Concurrency Fee, if applicable: o Mitigation Fees, if application, to be determined by the School District in coordination with the County Fire Code Plans Review Fees are not listed, but are collected at the time of application submission and those fees are set forth by the Authority having jurisdiction. The Land Development Code requires Neighborhood Notification mailers for Applications headed to hearing, and this fee is collected prior to hearing. All checks payable to: Board of County Commissioners. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. *Additional fee for the 5th and subsequent re-submittal will be accessed at 20% of the original fee. ___________________________________ _____________ Signature of Petitioner or Agent Date ___________________________________ Printed named of signing party Jessica Harrelson, AICP 6.18.2020 ✔ 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 484 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Bembridge Emergency Services Complex CFPUD & RPUD PUDA - PL20200000564 August 5, 2020 1 www.davidsonengineering.com BBEMBRIDGE EMERGENCY SERVICES COMPLEX - PUDA NARRATIVE AND EVALUATION CRITERIA PROJECT NARRATIVE: The Bembridge Emergency Services Complex Community Facilities Planned Unit Development (CFPUD) and Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) totals ±39.82 acres and is located on the east side of Santa Barbara, south of Radio Road and north of Davis Boulevard. The intent of the Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUDA) is to request an increase in residential density from 6 units per acre to 16 units per acre, using the Affordable Housing Density Bonus, for a maximum of 82 residential units within the Bembridge Emergency Services Complex CFPUD/RPUD. The subject County-owned parcel (folio #00400246406) is ±5.1-acres, now designated as Tract “A-1” on the updated PUD Master Plan. Of the parcel’s total site area, 3.77-acres is allocated for the proposed Affordable Housing Development (Tract ‘A-1 Residential’) and the remaining 1.33-acres is allocated for the development of a future Master County Pump Station (Tract ‘A-1 Master County Pump Station’). Density is calculated utilizing the site’s total area of 5.1-acres (16 DU/A x 5.1 = 82 units). Via a public-private partnership and a 99-year land lease, the future apartments (to be known as The Harmony on Santa Barbara) will be developed by McDowell Housing Partners, while the County maintains ownership of the 5.1-acre parcel. The apartment community will serve Collier County residents earning between 30 and ϴϬ percent of the County’s area median income (AMI). The Developer agrees to target and market at least 10% of units for seniors, veterans, or special needs populations. The community will provide one, two- and three-bedroom apartments along with accessory recreational facilities. Please refer to the Collier County Long-Term Lease Agreement included for reference. The request complies the County’s Growth Management Policies that encourage the development of affordable housing such as, “The goal of the Housing Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan is ‘to create an adequate supply of decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing for all residents of Collier County’. The development of private housing in Collier County is driven by an expensive housing stock; effectively excluding low-income and working-class families from the housing market. Thus, there is a need for the County to find way to encourage the provision of affordable-workforce housing for these families.” Additional updates to the PUD are outlined below: 1. Updated ‘Residential Use Development Standards’ (PUD Section 3.5) 2. Redesignate portions of the existing “Tract A” to Tract “A-1 Residential” and Tract “A-1 County Pump Station” 3. Addition of Developer Commitments (PUD Sections 4.2 and 4.4) 4. Updated Open Space Requirement (30% of the PUD’s gross area), per LDC Section 4.02.01.B.2. (PUD Section 4.8) 5. Addition of Preservation Requirement for Tract “A-1” (PUD Section 4.8) 6. Addition of Maximum Trip Generation for Tract “A-1 Residential” (PUD Section 4.9) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 485 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Bembridge Emergency Services Complex CFPUD & RPUD PUDA - PL20200000564 August 5, 2020 2 www.davidsonengineering.com 7. Addition of Deviations pertaining to Landscape Buffers and Parking Requirements (PUD Section 4.12) EVALUATION CRITERIA: The following criteria have been addressed by the applicant to evaluate the proposed PUDR application: 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. Response: Bembridge Emergency Services Complex is an existing CFPU & RPUD and is located within an established area of Collier County; therefore, does not contribute to urban sprawl. Existing ingress and egress points are located along Santa Barbara Blvd. One additional Access point along Santa Barbara Blvd. into Tract “A-1 Residential” is proposed; refer to Conceptual Master Plan. The PUD is and will continue to be served by Collier County Public Utilities; refer the Statement of Utility Provision. A Traffic Impact Statement has been prepared to outline the projects impacts to area roadway networks, while the PUD further addresses the development’s maximum AM and PM peak-hour trips. Stormwater has been conceptually reviewed and will be finalized at time of Site Development Plan permitting. An Environmental Resource Permit Modification, through the South Florida Water Management District, will be also obtained at time of SDP permitting. 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. Response: Evidence of Unified Control has been provided. The applicant/developer will be responsible for the provision and maintenance of all facilities on-site. Please refer to the recorded warranty deeds and the Collier County Long-Term Lease Agreement. 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.) Response: The subject PUD is located within the Urban Residential Subdistrict, per the Future Land Use Map. Permitted uses within the existing PUD are consistent with the County’s Growth Management Plan. The density being requested of 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 486 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Bembridge Emergency Services Complex CFPUD & RPUD PUDA - PL20200000564 August 5, 2020 3 www.davidsonengineering.com 16 units per acre is being achieved through an Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement between the Developer and Collier County (4 base units + 12 affordable housing density bonus units = 16 DU/A). 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. Response: The Bembridge Emergency Services Complex has been designed to be compatible with adjacent developments. e. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. Response: The PUD will continue to meet and/or exceed required open space requirements. f. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. Response: Please refer to the Transportation Impact Statement and Level of Service Analysis included within this PUDA request. The development, as proposed, will not have a negative impact upon existing private and public facilities. g. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. Response: The subject properties are surrounded by rights-of-way, single-family residential and agricultural facilities. Expansion beyond the proposed PUD boundary is not feasible as currently proposed. 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. Response: The proposed PUD Amendment complies with all applicable regulations set forth within the PUD and the Collier County Land Development Code. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 487 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Bembridge Emergency Services Complex CFPUD & RPUD PUDA - PL20200000564 August 5, 2020 4 www.davidsonengineering.com Future Land Use Element Provisions Policy 5.3 All rezonings must be consistent with the 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: 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. b. For such industrially-zoned properties, zoning changes will be allowed provided the new zoning district is the same or a lower intensity industrial, or commercial, zoning district as the existing zoning district, and provided the overall intensity of industrial land use allowed by the existing zoning district is not exceeded in the new zoning district. c. For such residentially-zoned properties, zoning changes will be allowed provided the authorized number of dwelling units in the new zoning district does not exceed that authorized by the existing zoning district, and provided the overall intensity of development allowed by the new zoning district does not exceed that allowed by the existing zoning district, except as provided for in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay. d. For property deemed to be consistent with this Element pursuant to one or more of policies 5.9 through 5.13, said property may be combined and developed with other property, whether such other property is deemed consistent via those same policies or is deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Designation Description Section. For residential and mixed use developments only, the accumulated density between these properties may be distributed throughout the project, as provided for in the Density Rating System or the Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict, as applicable. e. Overall intensity of development shall be determined based upon a comparison of public facility impacts as allowed by the existing zoning district and the proposed zoning district. Response: The subject PUD is an existing Community Facilities PUD and Residential PUD. The Amendment is requesting an increase in residential density, which will be achieved through an Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement between the Developer and Collier County. Public facilities are available to accommodate the proposed project. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 488 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Bembridge Emergency Services Complex CFPUD & RPUD PUDA - PL20200000564 August 5, 2020 5 www.davidsonengineering.com 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). Response: The Bembridge Emergency Services Complex CFPUD/RPUD is an existing PUD and has been designed to be compatible with adjacent developments. 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. Response: The Bembridge Emergency Services Complex CFPUD/RPUD has existing access points along Santa Barbara Boulevard. One additional access, directly to the Bembridge Apartments site along Santa Barbara Blvd. is also proposed. Please refer to the Conceptual Mater Plan for access locations. 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 Bembridge Apartments, “Tract A-1 Residential” will be developed with internal vehicular drive aisles and circulation. Policy 7.3 All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. Tract “A-1 Residential” abuts Calusa Park Elementary’ s access road along the north and due to bus traffic and parent pick-up/drop off stacking, a vehicular interconnection is not feasible. A pedestrian interconnect for the students will be provided and coordination with CCPS regarding sidewalk extensions/striping is underway. The site abuts a proposed pump station “Tract A-1 Master County Pump Station” to the south and water management to the east. Policy 7.4 The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. The Bembridge Apartments, proposed on “Tract A-1 Residential”, will be designed with sidewalks throughout the site and a sidewalk connection to Santa Barbara Blvd will be constructed to encourage a walkable community. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 489 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Bembridge Emergency Services Complex CFPUD & RPUD PUDA - PL20200000564 August 5, 2020 6 www.davidsonengineering.com Conservation & Coastal Management Element CCME GOAL 6: TO IDENTIFY, PROTECT, CONSERVE AND APPROPRIATELY USE NATIVE VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES AND WILDLIFE HABITAT. OBJECTIVE 6.1: Protect native vegetative communities through the application of minimum preservation requirements… Per Collier County, the native vegetation requirement is 15% of the existing native vegetation, 0.82 acres. 0.82 * .15 = 0.12 acres. The project is proposing to preserve 0.12 acres of wetlands. See Figure 4 within the Environmental Report. Offsite mitigation is proposed to offset wetland impacts. CCME GOAL 7: TO PROTECT AND CONSERVE THE COUNTY’S FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE. OBJECTIVE 7.1: Direct incompatible land uses are directed away from listed species and their habitats… No listed species have been identified on the Subject Property, which is completely surrounded by roadways and development. See Appendix C, Protected Species Survey. A Wood Stork Foraging Analysis and Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey will be provided during permitting, if warranted. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 490 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Bembridge Emergency Services Complex CFPUD & RPUD PUDA-20200000564 October 12, 2020 BEMBRIDGE EMERGENCY SERVICES COMPLEX A COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND SUPPORTING MASTER PLAN GOVERNING BEMBRIDGE EMERGENCY SERVICES COMPLEX, A COMMUNITY FACILITIES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE PREPARED FOR: COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSONERS And McDowell Housing Partners 601 Brickell Key Drive, Suite 700 Miami, FL 33131 PREPARED BY: Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc. 3106 South Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Jessica Harrelson, AICP Davidson Engineering, Inc. 4365 Radio Road, Suite 201 Naples, FL 34104 DATE REVIEWD BY CCPC DATE APPROVED BY BCC 9-13-2005 ORDINANCE NUMBER 2005-46 AMENDMENTS AND REPEAL 1998-06 EXHIBIT A Revised September 19, 2005 1 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 491 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Bembridge Emergency Services Complex CFPUD & RPUD PUDA-20200000564 October 12, 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE LIST OF EXHIBITS………………………………………………………………………………………………3 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE………………………………………………………………….………4 SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION……………………………...……..5 SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS……………………………...………7 SECTION III COMMUNITY FACILITIES AREAS PLAN………………………………….………109 SECTION IV GENERAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS…………………………...…….1514 2 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 492 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Bembridge Emergency Services Complex CFPUD & RPUD PUDA-20200000564 October 12, 2020 LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT A PUD MASTER PLAN 3 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 493 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Bembridge Emergency Services Complex CFPUD & RPUD PUDA-20200000564 October 12, 2020 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE The development of approximately 39.82± acres of property in Collier County, as a Community Facilities Planned Unit Development to be known as Bembridge Emergency Services Complex Community Facilities Planned Unit Development (Bembridge ESC CFPUD and RPUD) shall be in compliance with the goals, objectives and policies of Collier County as set forth in the Growth Management Plan (GMP), and implementing land development regulations. The Calusa Park Elementary School and auxiliary school facilities are subject to the Interlocal Agreement adopted in May 2003. The Calusa Park Elementary School and existing facilities shall also be considered consistent with the Growth Management Plan. The land uses of the CFPUD and the RPUD will be consistent with the growth policies, land development regulations and applicable comprehensive planning objectives of each of the elements of the GMP for the following reasons: 1. The subject property is within the Urban Mixed Use, Urban Residential Subdistrict Land Use Designation and located just north of Activity Center #6 as identified on the Future Land Use Map. Residential uses, government facilities and essential services are permitted within this designation. 2. The subject property is located within the residential density band of Mixed Use Activity Center Number 6 located at the intersection of Davis Boulevard and Santa Barbara Boulevard. As such, the subject property is eligible for 3 additional dwelling units per acre (DU/A). The projected density of 6 16 DU/A shall be calculated using Tract A-1’s total site area of 5.1-acres and is in compliance with the FLUE of the GMP based on the following relationships to required criteria: Base Density (Based on FLUE Density Rating System) 4.0 DU/A Bonus Density, proximate to an Activity Center 3.0 DU/A Affordable Housing Density Bonus 12.0 DU/A Total Permitted Density for Tract “A-1 Residential” 7.0 16.0 DU/A RPUD Density (calculated on undeveloped portion of Tract A only) 6.0 DU/A 16.0 DU/A x 5.1-acres = 82 maximum residential units 3. The subject property's location in relation to existing or proposed community facilities and services permits the development's intensity as required in Objective 2 of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE). 4. The project development is compatible and complementary to existing and future surrounding land uses as required in Policy 5.4 of the FLUE. 4.5. The project development will result in an efficient and economical extension of community facilities and services. 5.6. All final local development orders for this project are subject to Sections 6.02.00 and 10.02.07 of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). 6.7. The Bembridge ESC CFPUD and RPUD project is compatible with and complementary to existing and future surround land uses and is considered to be consistent with Policy 5.4 of the FLUE. 4 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 494 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Bembridge Emergency Services Complex CFPUD & RPUD PUDA-20200000564 October 12, 2020 SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION 1.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the location and ownership of the property, and to describe the existing conditions of the property proposed to be developed under the project name of the Bembridge ESC CFPUD and RPUD. 1.2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION The subject property is currently known as the Bembridge PUD, which is approximately 39.82± acres, located in Section 4, Township 50 South, and Range 26 East, and described as follows: The Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 4, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. Tax Folio Numbers: 00399840007, 00400246406, 00400246309 and 00400248006 1.3 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP The subject property is currently under the ownership of Collier County, 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, FL 34112, and the Collier County School District, 5775 Osceola Trail, Naples, FL 34109. 1.4 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AREA A. The project is located on the east side of Santa Barbara Boulevard approximately 2,906 feet south of Radio Road and 1,396 feet north of Davis Boulevard. B. The zoning classification of the subject property prior to the effective date of this approved CFPUD Document was Planned Unit Development (PUD). That PUD was approved by the Board of County Commissioners in 1998 (Ordinance 98-86) for residential and church use with a nursing home. Prior to that date it was designated Agricultural. C. Collier County Public Schools purchased 39.82± acres of the Bembridge PUD in January 2000 to build the Calusa Park Elementary School. In 2001 and 2002, Collier County purchased a 5.998± acre parcel and a 7± acre parcel from the School District of Collier County to build the ESC Center and EMS Station #1975 and water management lakes. D. The property has received the following approvals: 1. SDP approval for EMS Station #1975 (SDP-2003-AR-4786), May, 2004. 5 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 495 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Bembridge Emergency Services Complex CFPUD & RPUD PUDA-20200000564 October 12, 2020 1.5 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION The project site is located within the Lely Canal Sub-basin. Run-off from the site is routed to the Davis Boulevard swale via an improved easement along the eastern boundary of the Shoppes at Santa Barbara PUD, and then southerly from the Davis Boulevard swale system along County Barn Road, around the Royal Wood Development to a canal which is tied to the Lely Canal. The current permitted, pumped discharge will be replaced by a system of interconnected lakes designed for water quality treatment and run-off attenuation to pre-development rates. A water management lake will be constructed by the Collier County Transportation Division on five acres located in the southwest comer of this project, which will serve Santa Barbara Boulevard (6-lanes), residential uses, EMS Station #1975, and Calusa Park Elementary School. An existing detention lake is located in the central area of the project on the elementary school site. Elevations within the project site range from 9.5 to 10.5 feet above mean sea level. The site is within Flood Zone "X" as shown on FEMA Firm Panel 120067 0415. The soils on this site are primarily Boca fine sand and Pineda fine sand and are modified by development of the site. 1.6 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Bembridge ESC CFPUD and RPUD project is a multi-use project. Major uses consist of residential uses, those related to public safety (emergency medical services), the existing Calusa Park Elementary School and related auxiliary school facilities, and water management facilities which will serve these facilities and Santa Barbara Boulevard. 1.7 SHORT TITLE This Ordinance shall be known and cited as the “Bembridge ESC Community Facility CFPUD and RPUD Ordinance”. 6 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 496 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Bembridge Emergency Services Complex CFPUD & RPUD PUDA-20200000564 October 12, 2020 SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS 2.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to delineate and generally describe the project plan of development, relationships to applicable County ordinances, and the respective land uses of the tracts included in the project, as well as other project relationships. 2.2 GENERAL A. Regulations for development of the Bembridge ESC CFPUD and RPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this Document, the CFPUD and RPUD Planned Unit Development District and other applicable sections and parts of the Collier County LDC and GMP in effect at the time of building permit application. Where these regulations fail to provide developmental standards, then the provisions of the most similar district in the County LDC shall apply to the ESC Tracts "A", “A-1” and "B”. Tract "C", Calusa Park Elementary School and auxiliary facilities are subject to the Interlocal Agreement between the Collier County School District and Board of County Commissioners adopted in May 2003. B. Unless otherwise noted, the definitions of all terms in this Document have the same meaning as the definitions set forth in Collier County LDC. C. All conditions imposed and all graphic material presented depicting restrictions for the development of the Bembridge ESC CFPUD and RPUD shall become part of the regulations that govern the manner in which the Bembridge ESC CFPUD and RPUD site shall be developed. D. The provisions of Section 10.02.03.A.3.a. and b. of the Collier County LDC and the Interlocal Agreement (Adopted May 2003), where applicable, remain in full force and effect with respect to the development of the land which comprises the Bembridge ESC CFPUD and RPUD. E. The Master Plan is illustrated graphically as Exhibit A. The location, size and configuration of the individual water management features and development tracts shall be determined at the time of final site development plan approval with minor adjustments at the time of final plan approval, in accordance with Section 10.02.03 of the LDC. 2.3 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PLAN AND PROPOSED LAND USES A. The layout of streets and use of land for the various tracts is illustrated graphically by Exhibit A, the Master Plan. There shall be two three land use tracts (Tracts "A", “A-1” and "C") with necessary water management lakes, street rights-of-way, the general configuration of which is also illustrated by Exhibit A. Tract “A” represents the future residential area and Emergency Management Services building and related facilities. Tract “A-1” represents a future residential area on 3.77-acres and a Master County Pump Station on 1.33-acres, for a total 7 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 497 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Bembridge Emergency Services Complex CFPUD & RPUD PUDA-20200000564 October 12, 2020 site area of 5.1-acres. Tract "C" represents the existing Calusa Park Elementary School. An additional development tract, Tract "B" represents the lake and lake expansion area which will provides detention for stormwater runoff for this project and the Santa Barbara Boulevard road improvements. B. In addition to the various areas and specific items shown on Exhibit A, such easements as necessary (utility, private, semi-public, etc.) shall be established within or along the various tracts as may be necessary. 2.4 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT DENSITY OR INTENSITY OF LAND USE The EMS Station #1975 shall not exceed 7,000 square feet. Ancillary uses, such as heating, cooling, air conditioning mechanical equipment buildings and radio tower equipment areas, do not count towards this building area allocation. The gross residential project density shall be a maximum of 6.0 16.0 units per acre, based upon the undeveloped portion total site area of Tract A-1 only, subject to an Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement between the Developer and Collier County. (16.0 DU/A x 5.1-acres = 82 maximum residential units) 2.5 RELATED PROJECT PLAN APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS A. Final plans for all required improvements shall receive approval of the appropriate Collier County governmental agency to insure compliance with the Bembridge ESC CFPUD Master Plan, the Collier County Subdivision Code, and the platting laws of the State of Florida. B. Exhibit A, the Master Plan, constitutes the required PUD development plan. C. The provisions of Section 10.02.03 of the Collier County LDC, when applicable, shall apply to the development of all platted tracts, or parcels of land as provided in said Section prior to the issuance of a building permit or other development order. D. Appropriate instruments shall be provided at the time of infrastructural improvements regarding any dedications and method for providing perpetual maintenance of common facilities. 2.6 AMENDMENTS TO PUD DOCUMENT OR PUD MASTER PLAN Amendments may be made to the CFPUD and RPUD as provided in the Collier County LDC, Section 10.02.13.E. 8 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 498 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Bembridge Emergency Services Complex CFPUD & RPUD PUDA-20200000564 October 12, 2020 SECTION III COMMUNITY FACILITIES PLAN 3.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to identify permitted uses and development standards for areas so designated on Exhibit A, Bembridge ESC CFPUD Master Plan. 3.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION The CFPUD and RPUD provides for a maximum of 7,000 square feet of building area for permitted and accessory emergency operations uses, limited to an EMS use, as well as the existing Calusa Park Elementary School and a residential area, on 39.82± acres. Ancillary uses, such as HVAC and radio tower equipment areas, do not count towards this building area allocation. 3.3 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following: A. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures: 1. Educational plants (Tract "C") 2. Emergency medical services (Tract "A") 3. Residential units that are one-family and two-family dwellings, townhouse dwellings, garden apartment dwellings, and multi-family dwellings limited to 6 16 units per acre on Tract "A-1" only 4. Essential Services, inclusive of a Master County Pump Station (Tract “A-1”) B. Uses Accessory to Permitted Uses: 1. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the principal uses including carports, garages, and utility buildings for residential uses within Tract A-1. 2. Residential and commercial uses of an accessory nature which are incidental and customarily associated with support of a principal use. 3. Accessories for residential use such as recreational uses and facilities including swimming pools, tennis courts, children's playground areas, tot lots, walking paths, picnic areas, recreation buildings/clubhouses, and basketball/shuffle board courts for residential uses within Tract A-1. 4. Temporary use of the site for public purposes in accordance with Section 10.02.06.G. the LDC. 5. Parking facilities (Tract “A”, Tract “A-1” and “C”). 6. HVAC plants and other like facilities (Tract “A”, Tract “A-1” and “C”). 7. Major maintenance and service facilities (Tract “A”, Tract “A-1” and “C”) 9 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 499 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Bembridge Emergency Services Complex CFPUD & RPUD PUDA-20200000564 October 12, 2020 3.4 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Minimum Lot Area: None required. B. Minimum Lot Width: None required. C. Minimum Yards: 1. Principal and Accessory Structures a. Perimeter of CFPUD Fifty (50) feet or ½ the building height, abutting residentially whichever is greater. zoned property b. Perimeter of CFPUD Twenty-five (25) feet or ½ the building height, abutting non residentially whichever is greater. zoned property. c. Waterfront Zero (0) feet to bulkhead or rip-rap at top or of Bank, otherwise 20 feet. D. Distance Between Principal Structures on the Same Parcel: A minimum 15 feet or one-half sum of the building heights as measured by the closest exterior building walls, whichever is greater. E. Distance Between Accessory Structures on the Same Parcel: A minimum of 10 feet between detached accessory structures and between accessory structures and principal structures. F. Maximum Building Height 1. Principal buildings shall not exceed 40 feet in height nor 3 stories, whichever is less. 2. Accessory structures shall not exceed 30 feet in height. 10 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 500 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Bembridge Emergency Services Complex CFPUD & RPUD PUDA-20200000564 October 12, 2020 3.5 RESIDENTIAL USE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Minimum Yards: 1. Yards along Santa Barbara Boulevard: Seventy (70) Fifty (50) feet for one (1) and two (2) story structures and one hundred fifty (150) feet for three story structures. 2. Yards from on-site lakes: twenty (20) feet 3. Yards for internal tracts (principal structures): Front - 30 feet or half the building height Side / Rear – 20 feet 4. Yards for internal tracts (accessory structures): Front - 10 feet Side/Rear - 5 feet B. Minimum Floor Area (residential units): 1. One bedroom units - six hundred (600) square feet. 2. Two bedroom units - eight hundred fifty (850) square feet. 3. Three bedroom units - eleven hundred (1100) square feet. 4. Four bedroom units - one thousand three hundred fifty (1350) square feet. C. Distance Between Principal Structures: 1. Between one (1) story structures - Ten (10) feet. 2. Between one (1) story and two (2) story structures - Fifteen (15) feet. 3. Between one (1) story and three (3) story structures - Twenty (20) feet. 4. Between two (2) story structures - Twenty (20) feet. 5. Between two (2) story and three (3) story structures - Twenty-five (25) feet. 6. Between three (3) story structures - thirty (30) feet. 7. Principal to accessory structures – ten (10) feet. D. Maximum Building Height: 1. Principal buildings shall not exceed 40 feet in height or 3 stories, whichever is less. 2. Accessory structures shall not exceed the height restrictions of the LDC. 3.6 PROVISIONS FOR OFF-SITE REMOVAL OF EARTHEN MATERIAL The excavation and stockpiling of earthen material in preparation of water management facilities or to otherwise develop water bodies is hereby permitted. Off-site disposal is also hereby permitted subject to the following conditions: A. Excavation activities shall comply with "clear and fill” application requirements pursuant to Subsection 4.06.04.A.1.a.iii of the LDC. Off-site removal shall be limited to 10% of the total 11 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 501 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Bembridge Emergency Services Complex CFPUD & RPUD PUDA-20200000564 October 12, 2020 volume excavated, but not to exceed 20,000 cubic yards as set forth in the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. B. All other provisions of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, shall apply. 3.7 LANDSCAPE BUFFERS, BERMS, FENCES, AND WALLS The following standards shall apply: A. Landscape berms shall have the following maximum side slopes: 1. Grassed berms 4:1 2. Ground cover berms Perimeter 3:1 Internal to project 3:1 3. Structural walled berms-vertical B. Landscape buffers, berms, gates, fences and walls may be constructed within the landscape buffer tract along the perimeter of the Bembridge ESC CFPUD boundary prior to preliminary subdivision plat and site development plan submittal. Sidewalks shall meet the requirements of Section 4.06.02.D.4 of the LDC. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to Collier County Community Development and Environmental Services (CDES) for approval prior to construction. C. Pedestrian sidewalks and/or bike paths, water management systems, drainage structures, and utilities may be allowed in landscape buffers as permitted by Section 4.06.02.D.4. of the LDC. D. A 15’ Type “D” buffer shall be provided along Santa Barbara Boulevard for the portion of Tract “A-1” that is developed with residential uses. 3.8 DESIGN GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS The Bembridge ESC CFPUD is intended to encourage ingenuity, innovation and imagination in the planning, design and development or redevelopment of relatively large tracts of land as set forth in Section 2.03.06. of the LDC. 3.9 GENERAL PERMITTED USES Certain uses shall be considered general permitted uses throughout the Bembridge ESC CFPUD. General permitted uses are those uses which generally serve the facilities. A. General Permitted Uses: 1. Essential services as set forth under Section 2.01.03 of the LDC. 2. Water management facilities and related structures. 3. Lakes, including lakes with bulkheads or other architectural or structural bank treatments. 4. Guardhouses, gatehouses, and access control structures. 12 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 502 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Bembridge Emergency Services Complex CFPUD & RPUD PUDA-20200000564 October 12, 2020 5. Temporary construction and administrative offices for authorized contractors and consultants, including necessary access ways, parking areas and related uses. 3.10 SIGNAGE All signs shall be in accordance with Section 5.06.00 of the LDC with the exclusion of signs for Calusa Park Elementary School which are subject to the provisions of Section 10.02.03.A.3.a. and b. of the Collier County LDC and the Interlocal Agreement of May 2003. Two entry signs for the Calusa Park Elementary School shall be permitted, if one is a marquee sign (see 4.13.F 4.12.1). 3.11 SIDEWALKS/BIKEPATHS A. Pursuant to Section 6.06.02 of the LDC and Section 3.6 and 4.9 of the Bembridge ESC CFPUD, sidewalks/bikepaths shall be permitted as follows: 1. An internal sidewalk shall be permitted within drainage easements. 2. Sidewalks may be located outside platted rights-of-way when located within a separate sidewalk easement. 3. Sidewalks may be located within landscape buffers and/or easements. 13 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 503 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Bembridge Emergency Services Complex CFPUD & RPUD PUDA-20200000564 October 12, 2020 SECTION IV GENERAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 4.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the development commitments for the Bembridge Emergency Services Complex CFPUD. 4.2 GENERAL All facilities shall be constructed in strict accordance with final site development plans and all applicable State and local laws, codes, and regulations applicable to this CFPUD in effect at the time of site plan submittal with the exclusion of Calusa Park Elementary School which is subject to the requirements in Section 10.02.03.A.3.a. and b. of the LDC and the lnterlocal Agreement of May 2003. Except where specifically noted or stated otherwise, the standards and specifications of Chapter 4 of the LDC shall apply to this project. The developer, its successor and assigns, shall be responsible for the commitments outlined in this Document. The developer, its successor or assignee, shall follow the Master Plan and the regulations of the CFPUD as adopted, and any other conditions or modifications as may be agreed to in the rezoning of the property. In addition, any successor or assignee in title to the developer, is bound by the commitments within this Document. 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.” (Section 125.022, FS) 4.3 CFPUD MASTER PLAN A. The Bembridge ESC CFPUD Master Plan (Exhibit A) is an illustration of the conceptual development plan. Tracts and boundaries shown on the plan are conceptual and shall not be considered final. Actual tract boundaries shall be determined at the time of site development plan approval. B. All necessary easements, dedications, or other instruments shall be granted to insure the continued operation and maintenance of all service utilities and all common areas in the project. 4.4 SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT/MONITORING REPORT AND SUNSET PROVISION A. Sunsetting. The Bembridge ESC CFPUD shall be subject to the sunset provisions of Section 10.02.13.D of the LDC, as amended. B. Monitoring Report: An annual PUD monitoring report shall be submitted pursuant to Section 10.02.13.F of the LDC. 14 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 504 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Bembridge Emergency Services Complex CFPUD & RPUD PUDA-20200000564 October 12, 2020 A. 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 Collier County. 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 their/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. 4.5 ENGINEERING A. All project development shall be consistent with the LDC. 4.6 UTILITIES A. Water distribution, sewage collection, and transmission systems shall be constructed throughout the project by the developer. Potable water and sanitary sewer facilities constructed within platted rights-of-way or within dedicated County utility easements shall be conveyed to Collier County, pursuant to Collier County Ordinance 04-31, as may be amended. B. Upon completion of the utility facilities, the facilities shall be tested to insure they meet Collier County utility construction requirements in effect at the time construction plans are approved. 4.7 WATER MANAGEMENT A. A SFWMD surface water management permit shall be obtained prior to approval of the site development plan. B. An excavation permit shall be required for the proposed lakes in accordance with the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. All lake dimensions shall be approved at the time of excavation permit approval. 4.8 ENVIRONMENTAL A. A minimum of sixty (60) thirty (30) percent open space of the PUD’s gross area of the portion of the site that is developed for residential purposes, as described in Section 4.02.01.B.2. of the LDC, shall be provided. 15 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 505 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Bembridge Emergency Services Complex CFPUD & RPUD PUDA-20200000564 October 12, 2020 B. An exotic vegetation removal, monitoring and maintenance plan for the site, with emphasis on the preserve/open space areas, shall be submitted to the Department of Environmental Services Staff for review and approval prior to final site plan/construction plan approval. C. This CFPUD shall be consistent with the Environmental Sections of the Collier County GMP and the Collier County LDC in effect at the time of final development order approval. D. Environmental permitting shall be in accordance with the State of Florida Environmental Resource· Permit Rules and be subject to review and approval by the Environmental Services Review Staff. Removal of exotic vegetation shall not be counted towards mitigation for impacts to Collier County jurisdictional wetlands. E. All approved agency (SFWMD, ACOE, FPWCC) permits shall be submitted prior to final plan/construction plan approval. F. The preservation requirement for Tract “A-1” shall be 15% of the existing native vegetation on-site and can be provided off-site per LDC Section 3.05.07 H.f.iii. (0.82-acres x 15% = 0.12- acres required) 4.9 TRANSPORTATION A. All traffic control devices, signs, pavement markings and design criteria shall be in accordance with Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards ( MUMS), current edition, FDOT Design Standards, current edition, and the Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices MUTCD), current edition. All other improvements shall meet the requirements of the Collier County LDC. B. Arterial level street lighting shall be provided at all access points. Access lighting shall be in place prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy (CO). C. All work within Collier County rights-of-way or public easements shall require a rights-of-way permit. D. The development shall be designed to promote the safe travel of all roadway users including bicyclists and shall provide for the safety of pedestrians crossing said roadways. Sidewalks shall be separated from vehicular traffic in accordance with recognized standards and safe practices, as determined by Collier County Transportation Services Staff. A. The maximum total daily trip generation for ‘Tract A-1 Residential’ shall not exceed 50 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.” 16 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 506 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Bembridge Emergency Services Complex CFPUD & RPUD PUDA-20200000564 October 12, 2020 4.10 ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Accessory structures shall be constructed simultaneously with or following the construction of the principal structure, except for a construction site administrative office. 4.1211 LANDSCAPING FOR OFF-STREET PARKING AREAS All landscaping for off-street parking areas shall be in accordance with Section 4.06.00 of the LDC in effect at time of building permit application. 4.1312 DEVIATIONS FROM LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE A. Deviation withdrawn B. Deviation withdrawn C. Deviation withdrawn D. Deviation withdrawn E. Deviation withdrawn F. 1. Subsection 5.06.00 the LDC – Signs Deviation from Subsection 5.06.06.C.1 of the LDC, which limits the number of signs to one ground sign or one pole sign. Calusa Park Elementary School shall be permitted two entry signs with one being a marquee sign. G. Deviation withdrawn 2. Deviation #2 seeks relief from LDC section 4.06.02 C.4., “Type D Landscape Buffer,” which requires a 20-foot Type “D” landscape buffer along rights-of-way for developments of 15 acres or more, to instead allow a 15-foot wide Type “D” buffer on Tracts “A” and “A-1- Residential” along Santa Barbara Boulevard. 3. Deviation #3 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02 C., “Landscape Buffers,” which requires a 15’ Type ‘B’ buffer between multi-family residential and a community facility, to instead allow a 7’ Type ‘B’ buffer along the eastern property line of Tract “A-1-Residential”. 4. Deviation #4 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.05.04. G., “Parking Space Requirements,” which requires parking spaces for offices/clubhouses to be parked at 50% normal requirements and accessory recreational facilities for multi-family projects, to instead require a total of four (4) parking spaces for the office/clubhouse and no additional parking spaces for the accessory recreational facilities on Tract “A-1”. 5. Deviation #5 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02. C.4., “Type D Landscape Buffer,” which requires a 20-foot Type ’D’ landscape buffer along rights-of-way for developments of 15 acres or more, to instead allow a 10-foot wide Type ‘D’ buffer along Santa Barbara Boulevard and along the Roadway Easement for Tract B. 6. Deviation #6 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.05.02 Exhibit ‘A’, “Off-Street Parking Design Standards,” which permits a 2’ vehicular overhang into any landscape buffer that is 10’ or greater in width, to instead allow vehicular overhang into the 7’ Type ‘B’ buffer along the eastern boundary of Tract “A-1-Residential”. 4.13 AFFORDABLE HOUSING A. As documented in the Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement, the Developer has agreed to construct 13 rental units for residents in or below the very low income category (50% or less of the County median income), 50 rental units for residents in the low income category (51 to 60% of the County median income) and 19 rental units for residents in the low to moderate income category (61 to 80% of the County median income). 17 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 507 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) ZONING: SHOPPES ATSANTA BARBARA PUDLAND USE: VACANT COMMERCIAL"TRACT B"EXISTING LAKE"TRACT C"CALUSA PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL"TRACTA-1"COUNTYPUMPSTATION15' TYPE "D" LANDSCAPE BUFFERZONING: NEW HOPE MPUDLAND USE: RESIDENTIALZONING: BERKSHIRE LAKES PUDLAND USE: GOLF COURSE/RESIDENTIAL"TRACT A"EMS STATIONZONING: SANTA BARBARALANDINGS RPUDLAND USE: PRESERVEZONING: PLANTATION PUDLAND USE: RESIDENTIAL15' TYPE "B" LANDSCAPE BUFFER15' TYPE "B" LANDSCAPE BUFFERZONING: WILDWOOD ESTATES PUDLAND USE: RESIDENTIAL15' TYPE "B" LANDSCAPE BUFFERPEDESTRIAN INTERCONNECTPEDESTRIAN INTERCONNECTRIGHT-IN / RIGHT-OUTPARCELBOUNDARYPARCELBOUNDARYPUDBOUNDARYPUDBOUNDARYPUDBOUNDARYROADWAYEASEMENTO.R. BOOK 1701,PAGE 600-6010.12 ACRE PRESERVE"TRACT A-1"RESIDENTIAL10' TYPE "D" LANDSCAPE BUFFER10' TYPE "D" LANDSCAPE BUFFER15' TYPE "D" LANDSCAPE BUFFER14325564365 Radio Road, Suite 201Naples, Florida 34104P: 239.434.6060Company Cert. of AuthorizationNo. 00009496NBEMBRIDGE EMERGENCYSERVICES COMPLEXCFPUD AND RPUDEXHIBIT A: PUD MASTER PLANPAGE 1 OF 2REVISIONS1. REV. PER CC RAI COMMENTS - 7/13/20202. REV. PER CC RAI COMMENTS - 8/24/20203. REV. PER CC RAI COMMENTS - 10/12/2020 1 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 508 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 4365 Radio Road, Suite 201Naples, Florida 34104P: 239.434.6060Company Cert. of AuthorizationNo. 00009496CURRENT ZONING: BEMBRIDGE EMERGENCY SERVICES COMPLEXCFPUD AND RPUDPROPOSED ZONING: BEMBRIDGE EMERGENCY SERVICES COMPLEXCFPUD AND RPUDCURRENT LAND USE: COMMUNITY FACILITIES/ESSENTIALSERVICES/WATER MANAGEMENTPROPOSED LAND USE: COMMUNITY FACILITIES/ESSENTIALSERVICES/WATER MANAGEMENT/RESIDENTIALFUTURE LAND USE: URBAN RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICTPLANNING NOTES:OPEN SPACE SUMMARYREQUIRED OPEN SPACE (39.82 AC X 30% = 11.95 AC)xOPEN SPACE TO BE DETERMINED AT TIME OF SDP PERMITTING.DEVIATIONS1.SUBSECTION 5.06.00 THE LDC - SIGNS DEVIATION FROM SUBSECTION 5.06.06.C.1 OFTHE LDC, WHICH LIMITS THE NUMBER OF SIGNS TO ONE GROUND SIGN OR ONE POLESIGN. CALUSA PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SHALL BE PERMITTED TWO ENTRY SIGNSWITH ONE BEING A MARQUEE SIGN.2.DEVIATION #2 SEEKS RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 4.06.02 C.4., “TYPE D LANDSCAPEBUFFER,” WHICH REQUIRES A 20-FOOT TYPE “D” LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONGRIGHTS-OF-WAY FOR DEVELOPMENTS OF 15 ACRES OR MORE, TO INSTEAD ALLOW A15-FOOT WIDE TYPE “D” BUFFER ON TRACTS “A” AND “A-1-RESIDENTIAL” ALONGSANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD.3.DEVIATION #3 SEEKS RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 4.06.02 C.2., “TYPE B LANDSCAPEBUFFER,” WHICH REQUIRES A 15' TYPE 'B' BUFFER BETWEEN MULTI-FAMILYRESIDENTIAL AND A COMMUNITY FACILITY, TO INSTEAD ALLOW A 7' TYPE 'B' BUFFERALONG THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE OF TRACT “A-1-RESIDENTIAL”.4.DEVIATION #4 SEEKS RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 4.05.04. G., “PARKING SPACEREQUIREMENTS,” WHICH REQUIRES PARKING SPACES FOR OFFICES/CLUBHOUSES TO BEPARKED AT 50% NORMAL REQUIREMENTS AND ACCESSORY RECREATIONAL FACILITIESFOR MULTI-FAMILY PROJECTS, TO INSTEAD REQUIRE A TOTAL OF FOUR (4) PARKINGSPACES FOR THE OFFICE/CLUBHOUSE AND NO ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES FOR THEACCESSORY RECREATIONAL FACILITIES ON TRACT “A-1”.5.DEVIATION #5 SEEKS RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 4.06.02. C.4., “TYPE D LANDSCAPEBUFFER,” WHICH REQUIRES A 20-FOOT TYPE 'D' LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONGRIGHTS-OF-WAY FOR DEVELOPMENTS OF 15 ACRES OR MORE, TO INSTEAD ALLOW A10-FOOT WIDE TYPE 'D' BUFFER ALONG SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD AND ALONG THEROADWAY EASEMENT FOR TRACT B.6.DEVIATION #6 SEEKS RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 4.05.02 EXHIBIT 'A', “OFF-STREETPARKING DESIGN STANDARDS,” WHICH PERMITS A 2' VEHICULAR OVERHANG INTO ANYLANDSCAPE BUFFER THAT IS 10' OR GREATER IN WIDTH, TO INSTEAD ALLOWVEHICULAR OVERHANG INTO THE 7' TYPE 'B' BUFFER ALONG THE EASTERN BOUNDARYOF TRACT “A-1-RESIDENTIAL”.TRACT A (EMS STATION): 7,000 SF FOR PRINCIPAL STRUCTURETRACT A-1 (RESIDENTIAL): 82 RESIDENTIAL UNITSNOTE: REMAINING TRACTS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO A MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT INTENSITYMAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY:15% OF EXISTING NATIVE VEGETATION = 0.15 * 0.82 AC = 0.12 ACPER LDC SECTION 3.05.07 H.f.iii., PRESERVE REQUIREMENT MAY BE PROVIDED OFF-SITE.PRESERVE CALCULATION (TRACT 'A-1'):BEMBRIDGE EMERGENCYSERVICES COMPLEXCFPUD AND RPUDEXHIBIT A: PUD MASTER PLANPAGE 2 OF 2REVISIONS1. REV. PER CC RAI COMMENTS - 7/13/20202. REV. PER CC RAI COMMENTS - 8/24/20203. REV. PER CC RAI COMMENTS - 10/12/2020 1 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 509 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Page 1 of 26 This space for recording AGREEMENT AUTHORIZING AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS AND IMPOSING COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS ON REAL PROPERTY THIS AGREEMENT is made as of the day of , 2020, by and between McDowell Housing Partners, LLC (the "Developer") and the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (the "Commission"), collectively, the "Parties". RECITALS: A. The Developer is the contract purchaser of a tract of real property described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein (The "Property"). It is the Developer's intent to construct a maximum of 82 residential units (the "Units") at a density of 16 units per gross acre on the Property. The gross acreage of Property is 5.1 acres. The number of affordable Units constructed by Developer shall be 82, representing 100% percent of the total number of residential Units approved in the development. B. In order to construct the Units, the Developer must obtain a density bonus from the Commission for the Property as provided for in the Collier County Affordable 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 510 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Page 2 of 26 Housing Density Bonus Ordinance No. 90-89, now codified by Ordinance 04-41, as Land Development Code (LDC) § 2.06.00 et seq., which density bonus can only be granted by the Commission and utilized by the Developer in accordance with the strict limitations and applicability of said provisions. C. The Commission is willing to grant a density bonus to the Developer authorizing the construction of 61.32 bonus Units on the Property, if the Developer agrees to construct affordable Units as specified in this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the approval and grant of the density bonus of 12 units per acre requested by the Developer and the benefits conferred thereby on the Property, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Developer and the Commission hereby covenant and agree as follows: 1. Recitals. The above Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference. 2. Developer Agreements. The Developer hereby agrees that he shall construct 82 affordable Units which Units shall be sold or rented in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and as specified by the attached Appendices A & B, Exhibits A, B, and C, and Appendix C, and attached hereto. a. The following provisions shall be applicable to the affordable Units: (1) Defined terms: In the event of a conflict between terms as defined in the LDC or in Ordinance No. 90-89, Section 4, the definitions of the LDC will control when applying or interpreting this Agreement. In addition to these defined terms and the applicability of LDC § 2.06.04 "Phasing" shall mean: (a) the phased construction of buildings or structures in separate and distinct stages as shown on a PUD master plan, subdivision master plan or site development plan; or (b) in developments where phased construction is not depicted on a PUD master plan, subdivision master plan or site development plan, the construction of buildings or structures in a clearly defined series 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 511 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Page 3 of 26 of starts and finishes that are separate and distinct within the development. (2) Median Income. For the purposes of this Agreement, the median income of the area as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) shall be the then current median income for the Naples Metropolitan Statistical Area, established periodically by HUD and published in the Federal Register, as adjusted for family size as shown on the tables attached hereto as Appendix A, Exhibit C, which Exhibit shall be adjusted from time to time in accordance with any adjustments that are authorized by HUD or any successor agency. In the event that HUD ceases to publish an established median income as aforesaid, the Parties hereto shall mutually agree to another reasonable and comparable method of computing adjustments in median income. (3) Eligibility and Qualification of Owner/Renter. Family income eligibility is a three-step process: 1) submittal of an application by a prospective Owner/Renter; 2) verification of family housing unit provided under the affordable density bonus program prior to being qualified at the appropriate level of income (low or moderate income) in accordance with this Section; 3) certification of eligible Owner/Renter by the Community and Human Services Division. The Developer shall be responsible for qualifying Owners/Renters by accepting applications, verifying income and obtaining income certification for all affordable units in the subject development. All applications, forms and other documentation required by this Agreement shall be provided to Community and Human Services Division. Qualification by the Developer of any persons as an eligible Owner/Renter family shall be subject to review and approval in accordance with the monitoring and enforcement program in LDC§§ 2.06.05 and 2.06.06, respectively. (a) Application. A potential owner/renter shall apply to the developer, owner, manager, or agent to qualify as a low or very low income family for the purpose of owning/renting and occupying an affordable housing unit pursuant to the affordable 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 512 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Page 4 of 26 housing density bonus program. The Preliminary Application for affordable housing unit shall be provided by Collier County Community and Human Services Division as shown in Appendix B, Exhibit A, attached to this Agreement and incorporated by reference herein. (b) Income Verification and Certification. No affordable housing unit in the development shall be sold/rented whose household income has not been verified and certified in accordance with this Agreement and LDC§ 2.06.05. (c) Income Verification. The Developer shall obtain written verification from the potential occupant (including the entire household) to verify all regular sources of income (including the entire household). The most recent year's federal income tax return for the potential occupants (including the entire household) may be used for the purpose of income verification, attached to the Affordable Housing Applicant Income Verification form, including a statement to release information, occupant verification of the return, and a signature block with the date of application. The verification shall be valid for up to one hundred eighty (180) days prior to occupancy. Upon expiration of the 180-day period, the information may be verbally updated from the original sources for an additional 30 days, provided it has been documented by the person preparing the original verification. After this time, a new verification form must be completed. The Affordable Housing Applicant Income Verification form shall be provided to the Community and Human Services Division as shown in Appendix B, Exhibit B, attached to this Agreement and incorporated by reference herein. (d) Income Certification. Upon receipt of the Preliminary Application for an affordable housing unit and Applicant Income Verification form, the Developer shall require that an income certification form be executed by the potential occupant (including the entire household) prior to occupancy of the affordable housing unit by the occupant. Income certification shall assure that the potential occupant has an appropriate household income which qualifies the potential occupant as eligible to 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 513 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Page 5 of 26 occupy an affordable housing unit under the affordable housing density bonus program. The Affordable Housing Applicant Income Certification form shall be provided by the Community and Human Services Division as shown in Appendix B, Exhibit C, is attached to this Agreement and is incorporated by reference herein. Random inspection of files containing required documentation to verify occupancy in accordance with this Agreement and LDC § 2.06.00, may be conducted by the Community and Human Services Division upon reasonable notice. (4) Annual Progress and Monitoring Report. The Developer shall provide the Community and Human Services Division an annual progress and monitoring report regarding the delivery of affordable housing units throughout the period of their construction and occupancy. The annual progress and monitoring report shall, at a minimum, provide any information reasonably required to insure compliance with LDC § 2.06.00, or subsequent amendments thereto. The report shall be filed on or before September 30 of each year and the report shall be submitted by the Developer to the Community and Human Services Division. Failure to complete and submit the monitoring report to the Community and Human Services Division within sixty (60) days from the due date shall result in a penalty of up to fifty dollars ($50.00) per day unless a written extension not to exceed thirty (30) days is requested prior to expiration of the sixty (60) day submission deadline. No more than one such extension may be granted in a single year. (5) Occupancy Restrictions. No affordable unit in any building or structure on the Property shall be occupied by the Developer, any person related to or affiliated with the Developer, or by a resident manager. 3. Density Bonus. The Commission hereby acknowledges that the Developer has met all required conditions to qualify for a density bonus, in addition to the base residential density of 4 units per acre, and is therefore granted a density bonus of 12 density bonus units per acre, for a total density (total = density bonus units per acre X 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 514 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Page 6 of 26 gross acreage) of 16 units/ac, pursuant to LDC § 2.06.00 The Commission further agrees that the Developer may construct thereon, in the aggregate a maximum number of 82 units on the Property provided the Developer is able to secure building permit(s) from Collier County. 4. Commission Agreement. During the term of this Agreement, the Commission acting through the Community and Human Services Division or its successor(s) covenants and agrees to prepare and make available to the Developer any general information that it possesses regarding income limitations and restrictions which are applicable to the affordable Unit. 5. Violations and Enforcement a. Violations. It shall be a violation of this Agreement and LDC § 2.06.00 to sell or occupy, or attempt to sell or occupy, an affordable housing unit provided under the affordable housing density bonus program except as specifically permitted by the terms of this Agreement; or to knowingly give false or misleading information with respect to any information required or requested by the Community and Human Services Division or by any other persons pursuant to the authority which is delegated to them by LDC § 2.06.00. Collier County or its designee shall have full power to enforce the terms of this Agreement. The method of enforcement for a breach or violation of this Agreement shall be at the option of the Commission by criminal enforcement pursuant to the provisions of Section 125.69, Florida Statutes, or by civil enforcement as allowed by law. b. Notice of Violation for Code Enforcement Board Proceedings. Whenever it is determined that there is a violation of this Agreement or of LDC § 2.06.00, that should be enforced before the Code Enforcement Board, then a Notice of Violation shall be issued and sent by the appropriate department by certified return- receipt requested U.S. Mail, or hand-delivery to the person or developer in violation. The Notice of Violation shall comply with the requirements for such Notices. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 515 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Page 7 of 26 c. Certificate of Occupancy. In the event that the Developer fails to maintain the affordable units in accordance with this Agreement or LDC § 2.06.00, as amended, at the option of the Commission, building permits or certificates of occupancy, as applicable, may be withheld for any future planned or otherwise approved unit located or to be located upon the Property until the entire project is in full compliance with this Agreement and with LDC§ 2.06.00, as amended. 6. Assignment by Commission. The Commission may assign all or part of its obligations under this Agreement to any other public agency having jurisdiction over the Property provided that it gives the Developer thirty (30) days advance written notice thereof. The Developer may not assign, delegate or otherwise transfer all or part of its duties, obligations, or promises under this Agreement to any successor in interest to the Property without the express written consent of the Commission , which consent may be withheld for any reason whatsoever. Any attempt to assign the duties, obligations, or promises under this Agreement to any successor in interest to the Property without the express written consent of the Commission as required by this Section shall be void ab initio. 7. Severability. If any section, phrase, sentence or portion of this Agreement is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision, and all other provisions shall remain effective and binding on the Parties. 8. Notice. Any notices desired or required to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall either be personally delivered or shall be sent by mail, postage prepaid, to the Parties at the following addresses: 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 516 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Page 8 of 26 To the Commission: To the Developer: Collier County Community and Human Services 3339 E Tamiami Trail Building H, Suite 211 Naples, Florida 34112 McDowell Housing Partners, LLC 601Brickell Key Drive, Suite 700 Miami, FL 33131 Any Party may change the address to which notices are to be sent by notifying the other Party of such new address in the manner set forth above. 9. Authority to Monitor. The Parties hereto acknowledge that the Collier County Community and Human Services Division or its designee, shall have the authority to monitor and enforce the Developer's obligations hereunder. 10. Indemnify. The Developer hereby agrees to protect, defend, indemnify and hold Collier County and its officers, employees, and agents harmless from and against any and all claims, penalties, damages, losses and expenses, professional fees, including, without limitation, reasonable attorney's fees and all costs of litigation and judgments arising out of any claim, willful misconduct or negligent act, error or omission, or liability of any kind made by Developer, its agents or employees, arising out of or incidental to the performance of this Agreement. 11. Covenants. The Developer agrees that all of its obligations hereunder shall constitute covenants, restrictions, and conditions which shall run with the land and shall be binding upon the Property and against every person then having any ownership interest at any time and from time to time until this Agreement is terminated in accordance with Section 14 below. However, the Parties agree that if Developer transfers or conveys the Property to another person or entity, Developer shall have no further obligation hereunder and any person seeking to enforce the terms hereof shall 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 517 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Page 9 of 26 look solely to Developer's successor in interest for the performance of said obligations. 12. Recording. This Agreement shall be recorded at County's expense in the official records of Collier County, Florida. 13. Entire Agreement. The Parties hereto agree that this Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the Parties hereto and shall inure to and be binding upon their respective heirs, successors, and assigns. 14. Termination. Each affordable housing unit shall be restricted to remain and be maintained as the required affordable housing as provided in the LDC §2.06.04. 15. Modification. This Agreement shall be modified or amended only by the written agreement of both Parties. 16. Discrimination. a. The Developer agrees that neither it nor its agents shall discriminate against any owner/renters or potential owner/renters because of said owners/renters race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status, or handicap. b. When the Developer advertises, sells or maintains the affordable housing unit, it must advertise sell, and maintain the same in a non-discriminatory manner and shall make available any relevant information to any person who is interested in purchasing such affordable housing unit. c. The Developer agrees to be responsible for payment of any real estate commissions and fees for which it is liable in the purchase and sale of affordable units. d. The affordable housing units shall be intermixed with, and not segregated from, the market rate dwelling units in the development. e. The square footage, construction and design of the affordable, and gap housing units shall be the same as market rate dwelling units in the development. All physical amenities in the dwelling units, as described in item number seven (7) of the Developer Application for Affordable Housing Density Bonus, Appendix C, shall be the 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 518 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Page 10 of 26 same for market rate units and affordable units. For developments where construction takes place in more than one phase, all physical amenities as described in item number seven (7) of the Developer Application for Affordable Housing Density Bonus, Appendix C, shall be the same in both the market rate units and the affordable units in each phase. Units in a subsequent phase may contain different amenities than units in a previous phase so long as the amenities for market rate units and affordable units are the same within each phase and provided that in no event may a market rate unit or affordable unit in any phase contain physical amenities less than those described in the Developer Application. 17. Phasing. The percentage of affordable housing units to which the Developer has committed for the total development shall be maintained in each phase and shall be constructed as part of each phase of the development on the Property. Developer commits to 100% percent affordable housing units for this project, with 100% percent of the units in each phase consisting of affordable units. 18. Disclosure. The developer shall not disclose to persons, other than the potential buyer, renter, or lender of the particular affordable housing unit or units, which units in the development are designated as affordable housing units. 19. Consistency. This Agreement and authorized development shall be consistent with the Growth Management Plan and land development regulations of Collier County that are in effect at the time of development. Subsequently adopted laws and policies shall apply to this Agreement and to the development to the extent that they are not in conflict with the number, type of affordable housing units and the amount of affordable housing density bonus approved for the development. 20. Affordable Housing Density Bonus Development Agreement. This Agreement is a distinct and separate agreement from "development agreements" as defined by Section 163.3220, Fla. Stat., as amended. 21. Preapplication. Developer has executed and submitted to the 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 519 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Page 11 of 26 Development Services Department the Developer Application for Affordable Housing Density Bonus, a copy of which is attached to this Agreement as Appendix C and incorporated by reference herein. 22. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida. 23. Further Assurances. The Parties hereto shall execute and deliver, in recordable form if necessary, any and all documents, certificates, instruments, and agreements which may be reasonably required in order to effectuate the intent of the Agreement. Such documents shall include but not be limited to any document requested by the Developer to exhibit that this Agreement has terminated in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 14 above. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the day and year first above written. ATTEST: CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, Clerk BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA , DEPUTY CLERK By: BURT L. SAUNDERS , CHAIRMAN Approved as to form and legality: Jennifer A. Belpedio, Assistant County Attorney 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 520 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Page 12 of 26 DEVELOPER: Witnesses: By: Witness Printed Name Witness Printed Name ____________________ STATE OF _________________ COUNTY OF ________ The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by means of physical presence or online notarization this ____ day of ___________________, 2020, by ______________________________. Such person(s) Notary Public must check applicable box: are personally known to me. produced her current driver license. produced as identification. (Notary Seal) Notary Public __________________________ Printed Name of Notary: Commission Number: My Commission Expires: 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 521 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge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age 1 of 26 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 522 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Page 14 of 26 APPENDIX A, EXHIBIT A NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS/MONTHLY BASE RENTS Of the 82 units proposed, 13 will be restricted to 2ZQHU V 5HQWHU V earning less than 50% AMI (very low income), 50 will be restricted to tenants earning between 51% AMI to 60% AMI (low income), and the remaining 19 units will be restricted to tenants earning between 61% AMI to 80% AMI (low to moderate income). For rent and income levels, please see Appendix A, Exhibit C. (1)Base residential density allowed in this development 4 units/acre. (2)Gross acreage 5.1-acres (3)Maximum number of affordable housing density bonus units allowed in this development pursuant to LDC Section 2.06.00 12 units. (4)Gross residential density of this development (including affordable housing density bonus units) 16 units/acre. (5)Percentage of affordable housing units pledged by the developer (as a percent of the total number units in the development) 100% 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 523 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Page 15 of 26 APPENDIX A, EXHIBIT B AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS RATING SYSTEM LDC § 2.06.03, provides for calculation of a density bonus for developers pledging to construct affordable units within their development. Included in this Exhibit B are instructions for and the tables with which to calculate the density bonus for a particular project. Exhibit C contains the current median income and acceptable rents for very low, low, moderate, and gap income households in Collier County. The affordable housing density bonus rating system shall be used to determine the amount of the affordable housing density bonuses which may be granted for a development based on household income level , type of affordable housing units (owner-occupied or rental, single-family or multi-family, where applicable and percentage of affordable housing units in the development. To use the affordable housing density bonus rating system, Table A, below, shall be used. Table A shall be reviewed and updated if necessary on an annual basis by the Board of County Commissioners or its designee. First, choose the household income level (very low, low, or moderate) of the affordable housing unit(s) proposed in the development, as shown in Table A. Next, determine the percent of that type of affordable housing unit(s) proposed in the development compared to the total number of dwelling units in the development. From this determination, Table A will indicate the maximum number of residential dwelling units per gross acre that may be added to the base density. These additional residential dwelling units per gross acre are the maximum affordable housing density bonus (AHDB) available to that development. Developments with percentages of affordable housing units which fall in between the percentages shown on Table A shall receive an affordable housing density bonus equal the lower of the two percentages it lies between plus 1/10th of a residential dwelling unit per gross acre for each additional percentage of affordable housing rental units in the development. For example, a development which has 24% of its total residential dwelling units as affordable housing units, and which has an affordable housing density bonus rating of "four" will receive an affordable housing density bonus (AHDB) of 4.4 residential dwelling units per gross acre for the development. In no event shall the affordable housing density bonus exceed twelve (12) dwelling units per gross acre. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 524 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Page 16 of 26 APPENDIX A, EXHIBIT B AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS RATING SYSTEM Please calculate your density bonus in the space provided below. Attach additional pages if necessary. otal Allowable Density = Base Density + Affordable Housing Density Bonus. In no event shall the maximum gross density exceed that which is allowed pursuant to the GMP. 2 Developments with percentages of affordable housing units which fall in between the percentages shown on Table A shall receive an AHDB equal to the lower of the two percentages it lies between, plus 1/10 of a residential dwelling unit per gross acre for each additional percentage of affordable housing units in the development. 3 Where more than one type of affordable housing unit (based on level of income shown above) is proposed for a development , the AHDB for each type shall be calculated separately. After the AHDB calculations for each type of affordable housing unit have been completed, the AHDB for each type of unit shall be added to those for the other type(s) to determine the maximum AHDB available for the development. In no event shall the AHDB exceed 12 dwelling units per gross acre. 4 Owner-occupied only. 5 May only be used in conjunction with at least 20% at or below 120% MI. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 525 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Page 17 of 26 APPENDIX A, EXHIBIT C INCOME AND RENT LEVELS FOR THE VERY LOW, LOW AND MODERATE INCOME. Pursuant Chapter 74, Section 74-402 (a)(l); Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, moderate income is 61% to 80% of the median income, low income is 51% to 60% of the median income and very low income is less than 50% of the median income. RECOMMENDED RENTAL RATES The Low-Income Rental Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) rents utilized by The Florida Housing Finance Corporation (FHFC) are calculated based on HUD’s income limits. See income levels for 2020 below, followed by the rental rates applicable to this project. To calculate net rents, an utility allowance must be applied. The allowance is estimated based on an energy consumption study completed by a third-party consultant and approved by FHFC. COLLIER COUNTY MEDIAN INCOME 2020 RENTAL RATES BASED ON 30% AMI, 60%AMI and 80%AMI 1BR 2BR 3BR 30% AMI $463 $555 $642 60% AMI $927 $1,111 $1,284 80% AMI $1,236 $1,482 $1,712 ESTIMATED UTILITY ALLOWANCES IN COLLIER COUNTY 1BR: $131 2BR: $146 and 3BR: $161 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 526 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Page 18 of 26 APPENDIX B, EXHIBIT A PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT (DRAFT) Date Occupancy Desired: Date of Application: Amt. Of Sec. Deposit: Your Name: Race/National Origin: Handicap: Yes_ No_ Co-Tenant Name Race/National Origin: Handicap: Yes_ No_ Present Address: Street City State Zip Telephone No. Name of Landlord How Long at this Address: Landlord ' s Address: Street City State Zip Telephone No. If you have resided at your present address less than 3 years, please state previous address: Street City State Zip Telephone No. Name of Previous Landlord Street APPLICANT: City State Zip Telephone No. Present Employers Name Address and Telephone No. How long with Present Employer: Job Title Gross Salary: Hourly$ Weekly$ Every 2 Weeks$ Monthly$ 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 527 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Page 19 of 26 Social Security Number Birth Date Previous Employers Name Address and Telephone No. How long with Previous Employer Job Title CO-TENANT: Present Employers Name Address and Telephone No. How long with Present Employer: Job Title Gross Salary: Hourly$ Weekly$ Every 2 Weeks $ Monthly$ Social Security Number Birth Date Previous Employers Name Address and Telephone No. How long with Previous Employer Job Title NAMES OF ALL WHO WILL OCCUPY APARTMENT BIRTH DATE SEX AGE SOCIAL SECURITY 1. -- -- ------- 2. 3. PERSONAL REFERENCES (Not Relatives) 1. Name: Address: How Long Known: 2. Name: Address: How Long Known: 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 528 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Page 20 of 26 APPENDIX B, EXHIBIT B AFFORDABLE HOUSING APPLICANT INCOME VERIFICATION (DRAFT) Date: Applicant's Name:SocialSecurityNumber Co-Tenant's Name:: Social Security Number Present Address: Street city state Zip Telephone No. I hereby make application for a single family unit at I hereby declare and reveal all of my sources of income. I am aware that to leave out, omit or fail to report my assets or forms of income from pensions, stocks, bonds, real property rent, sale or ownership is a fraudulent act punishable by law. Knowingly falsifying information on this form is cause for refusal of occupancy. I hereby certify that this will be my permanent residence and that I have no other assisted housing. I understand that this information is for the purpose of computing my annual income to determine my qualification to buy an affordable, workforce, or gap housing unit. I understand that I am not required to surrender my ownership or rights or claimed property, pensions or capital gains, etc. Applicant Co-Occupant Amount Frequency Amount Frequency Received of Pay Received of Pay Wages/Salary Bonuses Tips $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Commissions $ $ $ $ Interest Income $$$$ Trust Fund Income $ $ $ $ Unemployment $ $ $ $ Workman' s Compensation $ $ $ $ Welfare $ $ $ $ Food Stamps $ $ $ $ Social Security $ $ $ $ Social Security Disability $ $ $ $ Supplemental SSI $ $ $ $ Family Assistance $ $ $ $ Child Support $ $ $ $ $-- $ $-- $ $-- $ Veterans Benefits $ $ Widows Benefits $ $ Union Pension $ $ 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 529 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Page 21 of 26 Self-Employment Business, Silent Partner, etc. Private Insurance Pension $ $ ____ $ $ $______ $ $ $ TOTAL ANNUAL INCOME $ $ THE VERIFICATION HERE REQUESTED MAY TAKE THE FORM OF THE MOST RECENT YEAR'S INCOME TAX RETURN FOR EACH OCCUPANT WHO HAS FILED AND WILL OCCUPY THE AFFORDABLE, WORKFORCE, OR GAP UNIT. THE SAME MUST BE EXECUTED FOR EACH OCCUPANT OF THE HOUSEHOLD WHO CONTRIBUTED TO THE ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME. FAILURE TO REPORT ALL SOURCES OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME WILL RESULT IN DISQUALIFICATION FOR TENANCY IN AFFORDABLE, WORKFORCE, OR GAP HOUSING UNIT. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 530 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Page 22 of 26 APPENDIX B, EXHIBIT C AFFORDABLE HOUSING APPLICANT INCOME CERTIFICATION (DRAFT) APPLICANT: Present Employer: Job Title: Address: Street City State Zip I, , hereby authorize the release of information requested (Applicant) on this certification form. Signature of Applicant STATE OF COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by means of physical presence or online notarization this ____ day of ___________________, 2020, by ____________________________________. Such person(s) Notary Public must check applicable box: are personally known to me. produced her current driver license. produced as identification. (Notary Seal) Notary Public Printed Name of Notary: Commission Number: My Commission Expires: 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 531 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Page 23 of 26 EMPLOYER CERTIFICATION Applicant's Gross Annual Income or Rate or Pay: $ Number of Hours Worked (Weekly): . Frequency of Pay: Amount of Bonuses, Tips, or other Compensation Received: $ $ Monthly Annually Supervisor STATE OF COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by means of physical presence or online notarization this ____ day of ___________________, 2020, by ____________________________________. Such person(s) Notary Public must check applicable box: are personally known to me. produced her current driver license. produced as identification. (Notary Seal) Notary Public Printed Name of Notary: Commission Number: My Commission Expires: 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 532 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Page 24 of 26 APPENDIXC DEVELOPER APPLICATION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS Pursuant to LDC § 2.06.01 please complete this form and submit it with any accompanying documentation to the Community Development & Environmental Services Division, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104. A copy must also be provided to the Collier County Community and Human Services Department. All items requested must be provided. 1. Please state what zoning districts are proposed by the applicant, if any, on the property and the acreage of each; Bembridge Emergency Services Complex CFPUD & RPUD 2. Has an application for rezoning been requested in conjunction with the affordable housing density bonus process? _X_ Yes __ No If yes, state date of application PUDA filed 6.24.2020.and if the request has been approved, state the Ordinance number N/A 3. Gross density of the proposed development. 16 units/ acre Gross acreage of the proposed development. 5.1- acres 4. Are affordable-workforce housing density bonus units sought in conjunction with an application for a planned unit development (PUD)? Yes x No. ____ If yes, please state name and location of the PUD and any other identifying information. Bembridge Emergency Services Complex CFPUD & RPUD 5. Name of applicant: Jessica Harrelson, AICP, Davidson Engineering, Inc. Name of land developer if not the same as Applicant: McDowell Housing Partners, LLC 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 533 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Page 25 of 26 6. Please state the number of units that will be rental and owner occupied, number of affordable housing units, and number of bedrooms the units will have. All 82 units will be renter occupied. See detailed unit mix below: 1BR @ 30% AMI: 4 1BR @ 60%AMI: 14 1BR @ 80% AMI: 4 2BR @ 30% AMI: 7 2BR @ 60% AMI: 29 2BR @ 80% AMI: 12 3BR @ 30% AMI: 2 3BR @ 60% AMI: 7 3BR @ 80% AMI: 3 7. Please provide a physical description of the affordable units by type of unit (very low income, low income , moderate income, gap income) and by number of bedrooms. Include in your description, for example, the square footage of each type of unit, floor coverings used throughout the unit (carpeting, tile, vinyl flooring); window treatments; appliances provided such as washer/dryer, dishwasher , stove, refrigerator; bathroom amenities, such as ceiling exhaust fans; and any other amenities as applicable. Attach additional pages as Exhibit "D" if needed. As shown above, the project will have 13 very low income units (50% AMI and below), 50 low income units (51% to 60% AMI) and 19 low to moderate income units (61% to 80% AMI). The unit size will be the following: 1BR – 700 SF, 2BR – 994 SF to 1,065 SF (corner unit) and 3BR – 1,336 SF. Units will feature solid surface countertops; plywood cabinets; ceramic and/or luxury vinyl tile flooring; impact windows, full-size energy star appliances including range, refrigerator microwave, and dishwasher; washer/dryer hookups in every unit; and LED lighting throughout. Project amenities will include a clubhouse (computer lab, billiards or ping-pong table, gathering room with media), fitness center and large heated pool. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 534 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Page 26 of 26 8. Please supply any other information which would reasonably be needed to address this request for an affordable, workforce, and gap housing density bonus for this development. Attach additional pages if needed. N/A 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 535 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Bembridge Emergency Services Complex CPUD & RPUD PUDA- PL20200000564 Deviation Justifications October 12, 2020 BBEMBRIDGE EMERGENCY SERVICES COMPLEX DEVIATION JUSTIFICATIONS Deviation #2 seeks relief from LDC section 4.06.02 C.4., “Type D Landscape Buffer,” which requires a 20-foot Type “D” landscape buffer along rights-of-way for developments of 15 acres or more, to instead allow a 15-foot wide Type “D” buffer on Tracts “A” and “A-1- Residential” along Santa Barbara Boulevard. Justification: The existing EMS Station site, located on Tract A of the PUD, has an existing 15’ Type D buffer to remain. This deviation request will solidify the existing 15’ Type D buffer on the EMS Station’s site and allow Tract A-1 to provide the same buffer for consistency. In addition, the existing water management lake and required lake maintenance easement, located on Tract B, creates development restraints on Tract A-1 and a 20’ Type ‘D’ buffer requirement would further reduce developable area and restrict on-site circulation needed for emergency services. The request for a reduction in width does not result in any negative impacts to the surrounding area. All required plant material will still be installed within the proposed 15’ Type ‘D’ Landscape Buffer. Deviation #3 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02 C.2., “Type B Landscape Buffer,” which requires a 15’ Type ‘B’ buffer between multi-family residential and a community facility, to instead allow a 7’ Type ‘B’ buffer along the eastern property line of Tract “A-1-Residential”. Justification: The existing water management lake and required lake maintenance easements, located within Tract B, creates development restraints for Tract “A-1 Residential”; therefore, a reduction in the required buffer width is being requested. In addition, the reduction in width of the landscape buffer will allow the site to be to be designed/constructed to accommodate emergency service vehicles to easily circulate the site. A 7’ Type B buffer provides sufficient width for plant materials to be installed and does not create a negative impact to the surrounding area. Deviation #4 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.05.04. G., “Parking Space Requirements,” which requires parking spaces for offices/clubhouses to be parked at 50% normal requirements and accessory recreational facilities for multi-family projects, to instead require a total of four (4) parking spaces for the office/clubhouse and no additional parking spaces for the accessory recreational facilities on Tract “A-1”. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 536 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Bembridge Emergency Services Complex CPUD & RPUD PUDA- PL20200000564 Deviation Justifications October 12, 2020 Justification: Per the actual parking demand, a total of four (4) parking spaces is sufficient for the office/clubhouse component of the proposed affordable housing development. Additional parking for the accessory recreational facilities is not needed due to the small size of the site (3.77-acres) and the compact design of the project. Sidewalks will be provided throughout, making the project a walkable/pedestrian friendly community. Parking requirements for the dwelling units will be met, as required by the Collier County Land Development Code. Deviation #5 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02. C.4., “Type D Landscape Buffer,” which requires a 20-foot Type ’D’ landscape buffer along rights-of-way for developments of 15 acres or more, to instead allow a 10-foot wide Type ‘D’ buffer along Santa Barbara Boulevard and along the Roadway Easement for Tract B. Justification: The above requested deviation is to solidify existing conditions along the western and southern PUD boundaries for Tract B (Lake Tract) and is consistent with the approved plans for the water management lake. Deviation #6 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.05.02 Exhibit ‘A’, “Off-Street Parking Design Standards,” which permits a 2’ vehicular overhang into any landscape buffer that is 10’ or greater in width, to instead allow vehicular overhang into the 7’ Type ‘B’ buffer along the eastern boundary of Tract “A-1-Residential”. Justification: Through coordination with South Florida Water Management District, on- site pavement/impervious areas for the proposed affordable housing development have been reduced to the extent possible. To create a site plan that is designed with more green space, parking spaces abutting the eastern buffer are being planned at 16’ in length rather than 18’. Providing parking spaces at this length prevents the opportunity to provide wheel stops, which would prevent vehicular overhang into the 7’ Type ‘B’ landscape buffer. There are no negative impacts created by this deviation request. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 537 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 538 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 539 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 540 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 541 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 542 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 543 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 544 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 545 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 546 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 547 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 548 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 549 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 550 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 551 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 552 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 553 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 554 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 555 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 556 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 557 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 558 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 559 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 560 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 561 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 562 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 563 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 564 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 565 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 566 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 567 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 568 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) June 16, 2020 Nick Casalanguida Deputy County Manager 16%"1-9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 569 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 16%"1-9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 570 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 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 K>>/ZKhEdz͕WK>/d/>^h/s/^/KEK&d,^ddK&&>KZ/ KtE^d,^h:dWZ>;ϭϬϬйͿ 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 571 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 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: 12.19.2001-Collier County Purchase ■99 MCDowell Housing Partners 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 572 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 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 3 of 3 Date of option: _________________________ Date option terminates: __________________, or Anticipated closing date: ________________ AFFIRM PROPERTY OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Any petition required to have Property Ownership Disclosure, will not be accepted without this form. Requirements for petition types are located on the associated application form. Any change in ownership whether individually or with a Trustee, Company or other interest-holding party, must be disclosed to Collier County immediately if such change occurs prior to the petition’s final public hearing. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. The completed application, all required submittal materials, and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Department ATTN: Business Center 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 ____________________________________________ ____________ Agent/Owner Signature Date ____________________________________________ Agent/Owner Name (please print) Jessica Harrelson, AICP 6.18.2020 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 573 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 574 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 575 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 576 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 577 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 578 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 579 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) §¨¦I-75 S §¨¦I-75 N -75 DAVIS BLVD RADIO RD/CR 856 COUNTY BARN RDSANTA BARBARA BLVDSANTA BARBARA BLVDDAVIDSON ENGINEERING, INC. 4365 RADIO ROAD, SUITE 201 NAPLES, FL 34104 PHONE: 239-434-6060 BEMBRIDGE EMERGENCY SERVICES COMPLEX LOCATION MAP SOURCES: COLLIER COUNTY GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS (2020 AERIAL) 010.5 Miles PUD BOUNDARY TRACT 'A-1' - 5.1 ACRES Legend ¯ 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 580 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) BEMBRIDGE PUD Environmental Data for PUDA SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Prepared For: Prepared By: August 4, 2020 Collier County Growth Management Division 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Earth Tech Environmental, LLC 10600 Jolea Avenue Bonita Springs, FL 34135 239.304.0030 www.eteflorida.com 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 581 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Environmental Data for PUDA Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com EXHIBITS Figure 1 Location Map Figure 2 Aerial Map Figure 3 FLUCCS Map Figure 4 Site Plan Figure 5 Proposed Preserve APPENDICES APPENDIX A: Collier County PUDA Pre-App Notes APPENDIX B: Earth Tech Environmental Staff Qualifications APPENDIX C: Protected Species Survey APPENDIX D: Full Page Exhibits ǁŝƚŚdžŝƐƚŝŶŐEĂƚŝǀĞsĞŐĞƚĂƚŝŽŶ 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 582 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Environmental Data for PUDA Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com INTRODUCTION The purpose of this document is to satisfy the Environmental Data requirements (LDC Section 3.08.00) for a Planned Unit of Development Amendment (PUDA) for the Bembridge PUD property (Subject Property). This information is in response to the items in the PUDA Pre-Application Notes as provided by Collier County (see Appendix A). The Subject Property consists of a single parcel (Folio # 00400246406) totaling approximately 5.10 acres. The southern portion of the property contains a deed from Collier County for a proposed pump station, which totals 1.33 acres. The northern portion of the property is proposed to be developed as an affordable housing complex, which totals 3.77 acres. PROPERTY LOCATION The Bembridge parcel is located immediately east of Santa Barbara Boulevard and approximately 0.50 miles north of Davis Boulevard, in Collier County. See Figures 1 & 2 below for the property location. Figure 1. Location Map 3 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 583 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Environmental Data for PUDA Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Figure 2. Aerial Map Environmental PUDZ-PUDA Checklist (non-RFMU) See pages 10-11 of Collier County Pre-App Notes 1. Is the project in the compliance with the overlays, districts and/ or zoning on the subject site and/ or the surrounding properties? (CON, ST, PUD, RLSA, RFMU, etc.) (LDC 2.03.05- 2.03.08; 4.08.00) Not in CV Library x Yes 2. Submit a current aerial photograph (available from the Property Appraiser’s office) and clearly delineate the subject site boundary lines. If the site is vegetated, provide FLUCFCS overlay and vegetation inventory identifying upland, wetland and exotic vegetation (Admin. Code Ch. 3 G.1. Application Contents #24). FLUCFCS Overlay -P627 x See Figure 3, FLUCCS Map below and associated descriptions. 4 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 584 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Environmental Data for PUDA Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Figure 3. FLUCCS Map with Existing Native Vegetation TABLE 1. ACREAGE PER FLUCCS COMMUNITY FLUCCS CODE DESCRIPTION ACREAGE UPLANDS/WETLANDS EXISTING NATIVE VEGETATION? 513 Water (Ditch) 0.09 OTHER SURFACE WATERS No 619 Exotic Wetland Hardwoods 3.04 WETLANDS No 641-E2 Freshwater Marsh (26-50% Exotics) 0.82 WETLANDS Yes 740 Disturbed Lands 1.15 UPLANDS No Site Total: 5.10 E1 = Exotics <25% of total cover E2 = Exotics 26-50% of total cover E3 = Exotics 51-75% of total cover E4 = Exotics >75% of total cover UPLAND COMMUNITY DESCRIPTIONS FLUCCS 740, Disturbed Land This community consists of previously cleared areas which border the east and west property boundaries. They are heavily inundated with exotic vegetation including canopy level Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolia). Groundcover consists of ragweed (Ambrosia artimisifolia), dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), Spanish needle (Bidens alba), balsam apple (Momordica charantia), and grapevine (Vitis rotundifolia). 5 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 585 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Environmental Data for PUDA Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com WETLAND COMMUNITY DESCRIPTIONS FLUCCS 619, Exotic Wetland Hardwoods This community is found throughout the majority of the property. It consists of dense Brazilian pepper with lesser amounts of earleaf acacia (Acacia auriculiformis) and scattered cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto). Groundcover consists of sedges (Cyperus spp.), dog fennel, balsam apple and a variety of vines, with cogon grass (Imperata cylindrica) and torpedograss (Panicum repens) along the edges. FLUCCS 641-E2, Freshwater Marsh (26-50% Exotics) This community is found in the southern portion of the property. It is largely void of canopy-level vegetation. The understory contains small earleaf acacia, Carolina willow (Salix caroliniana), sedges, golden rod (Solidago sempervirens), lobelia (Lobelia spp.), and cogon grass. Drift lines and bleaching were apparent within this community. OTHER SURFACE WATERS FLUCCS 513, Ditch A ditch is located parallel to the western property boundary. It contains standing water bordered by Carolina willow. 4. Provide calculations on site plan showing the appropriate acreage of native vegetation to be retained, the max. amount and rations permitted to be created on-site or mitigated off- site. Exclude vegetation located within utility and drainage easements from the preserve calculations (LDC 3.05.07.B-D; 3.05.07.F; 3.05.07.H.1.d-e). Preserve Calculation – P547 x Per Collier County, the native vegetation requirement is 15% of the existing native vegetation, 0.82 acres. 0.82 * .15 = 0.12 acres. The project is proposing to preserve 0.12 acres of wetlands. See Figure 4 above. Offsite mitigation is proposed to offset wetland impacts. See Figures 4 & 5 below. 6 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 586 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Environmental Data for PUDA Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Figure 4. Site Plan Figure 5. Proposed Preserve 7 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 587 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Environmental Data for PUDA Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com 6. Retained preservation areas shall be selected based on criteria defined in LDC 3.05.07.A.3, include all 3 strata, be in the largest contiguous area possible and shall be interconnected within the site and to adjoining off-site preservation areas or wildlife corridors. (LDC 3.05.07.A.1-4) Preserve Selection- P550 x See #4 above. 9. Provide Environmental Data identifying author credentials, consistency determination with the GMPs, off-site preserves, seasonal and historic high water levels, and analysis of water quality. For land previously used for farm fields or golf course, provide soil sampling/ groundwater monitoring reports identifying any site contamination. (LDC 3.08.00) Environmental Data Required – P 522 x See Appendix B, Earth Tech Environmental Staff Qualifications. 10. PUD Document and Master Plan shall state the minimum acreage required to be preserved. (LDC 10.02.13.A.2) Master Plan Contents-P626 x See PUD Document and Master Plan. 13. PUD Document shall identify any listed species found on the site and/or describe any unique vegetative features that will be preserved on the site. (LDC 10.02.13.A.2.) Unique Features- P628 x No listed species have been identified on the property. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA CHECKLIST See pages 12-15 of Collier County Pre-App Notes 2. WHO AND WHAT COMPANY PREPARED THE ENVIRONMENTAL DATA REPORT? Preparation of Environmental Data. Environmental Data Submittal Requirements shall be prepared by an individual with academic credentials and experience in the area of environmental sciences or natural resource management. Academic credentials and experience shall be a bachelor’s or higher degree in one of the biological sciences with at least two years of ecological or biological professional experience in the State of Florida. Please include revision dates on resubmittals. x This Environmental Data Report was prepared by staff from Earth Tech Environmental, LLC. See Appendix B for qualifications. 7. Provide a wildlife survey for the nests of bald eagle and for listed species known to inhabit biological communities similar to those existing on the site. The survey shall be conducted in accordance with the guidelines or recommendations of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Survey times may be reduced or waived where an initial habitat assessment by the environmental consultant indicates that the likelihood of listed species occurrence is low, as determined by the FFWCC and 8 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 588 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Environmental Data for PUDA Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com USFWS. Where an initial habitat assessment by the environmental consultant indicates that the likelihood of listed species occurrence is low, the survey time may be reduced or waived by the County Manager or designee, when the project is not reviewed or technical assistance not provided by the FFWCC and USFWS. Additional survey time may be required if listed species are discovered. x No bald eagles/nests or other listed species were identified on the Subject Property. See Appendix C for Protected Species Survey. 8. Provide a survey for listed plants identified in 3.04.03 x No listed plants were identified on the Subject Property. See Appendix C. 9. Wildlife habitat management and monitoring plans in accordance with 3.04.00 shall be required where listed species are utilizing the site or where wildlife habitat management and monitoring plans are required by the FFWCC or USFWS. These plans shall describe how the project directs incompatible land uses away from listed species and their habitats. Identify the location of listed species nests, burrows, dens, foraging areas, and the location of any bald eagle nests or nest protection zones on the native vegetation aerial with FLUCFCS overlay for the site. Wildlife habitat management plans shall be included on the SDP or final plat construction plans. Bald eagle management plans are required for sites containing bald eagle nests or nest protection zones, copies of which shall be included on the SDP or final plat construction plans. Note: Not required at time of Land use petitions except for Bald Eagle Management Plans. Staff requests management plans for other species are only provided at time of Plat or SDP. x N/A; no listed species were identified on the Subject Property. 11. Identify on a current aerial the acreage, location, and community types of all upland and wetland habitats on the project site, according to the Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS), and provide a legend for each of the FLUCFCS Codes identified. Aerials and overlay information must be legible at the scale provided. a. Provide descriptions of each FLUCFCS code. Provide calculations for each acreage of native vegetation required to be retained on-site. a. Demonstrate on map. b. Provide a companion chart. Include the above referenced calculations and aerials on the SDP or final plat construction plans. x See Figure 3 and Table 1 above for a FLUCCS Map and corresponding descriptions. A deviation is being requested from the native vegetation requirement. See #4 above. 26. Is EAC Review (by CCPC) required? x To be determined at First Review. 9 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 589 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Environmental Data for PUDA Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com CCME GOAL 6: TO IDENTIFY, PROTECT, CONSERVE AND APPROPRIATELY USE NATIVE VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES AND WILDLIFE HABITAT. OBJECTIVE 6.1: Protect native vegetative communities through the application of minimum preservation requirements… Per Collier County, the native vegetation requirement is 15% of the existing native vegetation, 0.82 acres. 0.82 * .15 = 0.12 acres. The project is proposing to preserve 0.12 acres of wetlands. See Figure 4 above. Offsite mitigation is proposed to offset wetland impacts. CCME GOAL 7: TO PROTECT AND CONSERVE THE COUNTY’S FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE. OBJECTIVE 7.1: Direct incompatible land uses are directed away from listed species and their habitats… No listed species have been identified on the Subject Property, which is completely surrounded by roadways and development. See Appendix C, Protected Species Survey. A Wood Stork Foraging Analysis and Florida Bonneted Bat Tree Cavity Survey will be provided during permitting, if warranted. 10 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 590 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Environmental Data for PUDA Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com APPENDIX A Collier County PUDA Pre-App Notes 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 591 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 592 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 593 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 594 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 595 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 596 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 597 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 598 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 599 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 600 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 601 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 602 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 603 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 604 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 605 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 606 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 607 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 608 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 609 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 610 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 611 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 612 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 613 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 614 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 615 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 616 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 617 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 618 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 619 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 620 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 621 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 622 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Environmental Data for PUDA Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com APPENDIX B Earth Tech Environmental Staff Qualifications 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 623 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 239.304.0030 | www.eteflorida.com Mr. Sterk has been an environmental consultant in Southwest Florida since 1994 and has worked on projects throughout Collier, Lee, Hendry, DeSoto, Glades, and Charlotte counties. His varied experience spans marine, upland, and estuarine habitats and includes extensive work with a wide variety of listed species. Relevant Experience In addition to authoring dozens of habitat and species management plans, in 2007, Jeremy co-authored the first habitat conservation plan (HCP) in the nation to address incidental take issues for both red cockaded woodpeckers (RCW) and Florida panther on the same property. In 1998, he wrote an ecological assessment computer model for the South Florida Water Management District as part of the South Lee County Watershed Study. Early in his career, Jeremy was the principal investigator of a field research project in the Bahamas that utilized telemetry tracking to study the swimming speed of sub-adult lemon sharks. Jeremy’s work experience includes: FWC Approved Shorebird Monitor Environmental Resource Permitting (ERP) USFWS Bald Eagle Monitor Turbidity Monitoring Vegetation & Habitat Mapping Wetland & Water Level Monitoring USFWS Section 7 & Section 10 Permitting Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) Water Use Monitoring & Compliance Project Management Preserve Management Plans GIS / GPS Mapping & Exhibits RCW Surveys & Habitat Evaluations Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessments Environmental Land Use Planning Phase II Environmental Site Assessments Native Vegetation Restoration Plans Lake Management Plans Site and Aerial Photography Due Diligence Reports Scrub Jay Surveys Wetland Jurisdictional Determinations Mangrove Assessments & Restorations Bonneted Bat Surveys Hard Bottom & Soft Bottom Benthic Surveys Seagrass Surveys Artificial Reef Deployments Manatee Observer Certifications/Credentials ƒ Certified Environmental Professional #1692037, Academy of Board Certified Environmental Professionals ƒ Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Authorized Gopher Tortoise Agent (Permit No. GTA-09-00192) ƒ Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Burrowing Owl Registered Agent (No. RAG-18-00080) ƒ PADI Research Diver Certified ƒ SSI Nitrox Diver Certified ƒ Florida Association of Environmental Professionals – member since January 1995; served on the Board of Directors for the Southwest Florida Chapter from (2008 – 2012). Past Secretary, Vice President, & President. ƒ State of Florida Real Estate License (2003 to Present) Appointed by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners to: x Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee, Chairman of the Lands Evaluation and Management Subcommittee. (2009 to 2014). x Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee (DSAC) (2015 to Present). x FWC Local Rule Review Committee (Manatee Protection Speed Zones) (2016). Publications Sundström, L.F., J. Sterk, & S.H. Gruber. 1998. Effects of a speed-sensing transmitter on the swimming speed of lemon sharks. Bahamas J. Sci. 6 (1): 12-22. JEREMY STERK, C.E.P. Partner \ Principal Ecologist e: jeremys@eteflorida.com t: 239.304.0030 m: 239.595.4929 Years Experience 26 years Education/Training B.S. Aquatic Biology St. Cloud State University (1994) Professional Affiliations Academy of Board Certified Environmental Professionals #16992037 Florida Association of Environmental Professionals (FAEP) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 624 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 239.304.0030 | www.eteflorida.com Ms. Bobka joined Earth Tech Environmental, LLC (ETE) in 2016 as an Ecologist with more than 9 years of private and public sector experience in the environmental field. As an Ecologist, Jennifer fulfills duties in environmental consulting, wetland & wildlife monitoring, species surveys and management plans, Florida bonneted bat acoustic surveys, GIS mapping, and ERP permitting. Relevant Experience Jennifer has worked as a Naturalist for a non-profit in Collier County, a Manatee Research Intern with Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission in Palm Beach, and a Field Crew Leader for Montana Conservation Corps. Her varied experience spans coastal marine, shoreline and estuarine habitats, to upland forests and alpine environments. She has worked with a wide variety of native and invasive plants and wildlife, with a special interest in threatened and endangered species. She is also an experienced environmental educator and Florida Master Naturalist. Jennifer’s work experience includes: Vegetation and Habitat Mapping Wetland Determinations Bald Eagle Monitoring Monitoring Well Installation Shorebird Monitoring Water Level Monitoring Protected Species Surveys GIS Mapping Bat Acoustic Surveys Phase I ESAs Species Management Plans Environmental Resource Permitting (ERP) Submerged Resource Surveys Natural Resource Management Turbidity Monitoring Trail Maintenance Seagrass Surveys Mechanical and Manual Forest Fuel Reduction Wetland Preserve Monitoring Small Watercraft Operations Invasive and Exotic Species Mapping Ecological Restoration Wildfire Assessments Environmental Education & Outreach Relevant Certifications/Credentials CPR/First Aid/AED, American Safety & Health Institute, 2020 Florida Master Naturalist, UF/IFAS, 2019 Nitrox Certified SCUBA Diver, SCUBAdventures, 2018 Certified Interpretive Guide, National Association of Interpretation, 2016 PADI Open Water SCUBA Diver, SCUBA Outfitters of Naples, 2012 Wilderness First Responder, SOLO Schools, 2009 JENNIFER BOBKA Ecologist e: jenniferb@eteflorida.com t: 239.304.0030 m: 406.579.4616 Years’ Experience 9 years Education/Training B.A. Environmental Studies Montana State University (2009) Marine Biology & Coastal Ecology Study Abroad, Costa Rica (2007) Python Responder The Nature Conservancy (2015) Sawyer Training US Forest Service (2010) Professional Affiliations Florida Native Plant Society (FNPS) Florida Association of Environmental Professionals (FAEP) League of Environmental Educators of Florida (LEEF) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 625 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Environmental Data for PUDA Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com APPENDIX C Protected Species Survey 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 626 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) BEMBRIDGE PUD Protected Species Survey SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Prepared For: Prepared By: June 12, 2020 Davidson Engineering 4365 Radio Road, Suite 201 Naples, FL 34104 www.davidsonengineering.com Earth Tech Environmental, LLC 10600 Jolea Avenue Bonita Springs, FL 34135 239.304.0030 www.eteflorida.com 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 627 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Protected Species Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................. 5 2.0 PROPERTY LOCATION ................................................................................................................... 5 3.0 SPECIES SURVEY MATERIALS & METHODS ................................................................................... 5 4.0 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................... 6 5.0 RESULTS ...................................................................................................................................... 10 6.0 SUMMARY................................................................................................................................... 16 7.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................ 17 EXHIBITS Figure 1 Site Location Map Figure 2 Aerial Map Figure 3 FLUCCS Map with Aerial Figure 4 FLUCCS Map Figure 5 Transect Map & Field Results Figure 6 Florida Bonneted Bat Consultation Area Figure 7 Florida Panther Information Figure 8 Wood Stork Foraging Information Figure 9 Florida Black Bear Information Figure 10 Bald Eagle Information 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 628 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Protected Species Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com 1.0 INTRODUCTION Earth Tech Environmental (ETE) conducted a search for listed species on the property referred to as Bembridge PUD (Subject Property) prior to development. This assessment was conducted by ETE on April 14, 2020 to evaluate the Subject Property for the potential presence of listed species of concern based on the determined Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS) vegetation. 2.0 PROPERTY LOCATION The Subject Property for this report consists of a single parcel (Folio # 00400246406). The Subject Property is located on the east side of Santa Barbra Boulevard, just north of Davis Boulevard in Collier County, Florida. According to the Collier County Property Appraiser’s website, the Subject Property totals approximately 5.11 acres. See Figure 1 below for a location map. FFigure 1. Site Location Map 3.0 SPECIES SURVEY MATERIALS & METHODS The species survey was conducted using a methodology similar to that discussed in the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) publication “Ecology and Habitat Protection Needs of Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) Populations Found on Lands Slated for Large-scale Development in Florida.” This methodology is as follows: Existing vegetation communities or land-uses on the subject site are delineated on a recent aerial photograph (Collier County 2020) using the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS). FLUCCS mapping for this property is detailed below in (Figures 3 & 4). The resulting FLUCCS codes are cross-referenced with a list of protected plant and animal species. The lists were obtained from two agency publications: 3 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 629 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Protected Species Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com ™ “Florida’s Endangered Species, Threatened Species & Species of Special Concern-Official Lists”, December 2018. ™ “Notes on Florida’s Endangered and Threatened Plants”, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 2010. The result is a composite table that contains the names of the protected species which have the highest probability of occurring in each particular FLUCCS community. See Table 3 of this report for the species list that applies to the FLUCCS communities associated with the Subject Property. In the field, each FLUCCS community is searched for listed species or signs of listed species. This is accomplished using a series of transects throughout each vegetation community (see Figure 5). If necessary, transect integrity is maintained using a handheld GPS in track mode. Signs or sightings of all listed and non-listed species are then recorded, which are flagged in the field and marked by GPS. Based on the habitat types found on the Subject Property (see Table 3), particular attention was paid to the presence or absence wading birds. Florida bonneted bat, Florida black bear and Florida panther were also considered. Approximately three (3) man-hours were logged on the Subject Property during this species survey (see Table 1). 4.0 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS Temperatures during the fieldwork for this survey were in the high 80’s. Cloud cover varied, but was mostly absent. The Subject Property is vacant and vegetated, with a combination of wetland and upland communities. Large amounts of exotic vegetation are present throughout the property. The property is surrounded by development on all sides, with Santa Barbra Boulevard running along the western property boundary. See Figure 2 below for an aerial map. The Subject Property has the following surrounding land uses: North Road Access/School East Pond/School South Fire Station/Commercial West Santa Barbra Boulevard TABLE 1. FIELD TIME SPENT ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY DATE START TIME END TIME NO. ECOLOGISTS MAN HOURS TASK April 14, 2020 9:30 am 12:30 pm 1 3.0 Species Survey Fieldwork 4 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 630 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Protected Species Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Figure 2. Aerial Map Listed below are the FLUCCS communities identified on the site. The community descriptions correspond to the mappings on the FLUCCS maps below (Figures 3 and 4). See Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (Department of Transportation, Surveying & Mapping Geographic Mapping Section, 1999) for definitions. The Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council’s (FLEPPC) list of invasive species contains Category I & II species that may be found on the Subject Property. Category I & II species are invasive exotics that are altering native plant communities by displacing native species, changing community structures or ecological functions, or hybridizing with natives (FLEPPC). A significant factor in mapping vegetative associations and local habitats is the invasion of these species such as Brazilian pepper, ear leaf acacia, melaleuca, Caesarweed, and air potato. Levels of exotic density were mapped by using field observations and photo interpretation as shown in Figure 3. Modifiers, or “E” designators, are appended to the FLUCCS codes to indicate the approximate density of exotics in the canopy and/or sub-canopy. TABLE 2. ACREAGE PER FLUCCS COMMUNITY FLUCCS CODE DESCRIPTION ACREAGE 513 Ditch 0.09 619 Exotic Wetland Hardwoods 3.04 641-E2 Freshwater Marsh (26-50% Exotics) 0.82 740 Disturbed Land 1.16 Site Total: 5.11 5 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 631 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Protected Species Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com E1 = Exotics <25% of total cover E2 = Exotics 26-50% of total cover E3 = Exotics 51-75% of total cover E4 = Exotics >75% of total cover Figure 3. FLUCCS Map with Aerial 6 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 632 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Protected Species Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Figure 4. FLUCCS Map FLUCCS 513, Ditch A ditch is located parallel to the western property boundary. It contains standing water bordered by Carolina willow (Salix caroliniana). FLUCCS 619, Exotic Wetland Hardwoods This community is found throughout the majority of the property. It consists of dense Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolia) with lesser amounts of earleaf acacia (Acacia auriculiformis) and scattered cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto). Groundcover consists of sedges (Cyperus spp.), dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), balsam apple (Momordica charantia) and a variety of vines, with cogon grass (Imperata cylindrica) and torpedograss (Panicum repens) along the edges. FLUCCS 641-E2, Freshwater Marsh (26-50% Exotics) This community is found in the southern portion of the property. It is largely void of canopy-level vegetation. The understory contains small earleaf acacia, Carolina willow, sedges, golden rod (Solidago sempervirens), lobelia (Lobelia spp.), and cogon grass. FLUCCS 740, Disturbed Land This community consists of previously cleared areas which border the east and west property boundaries. They are heavily inundated with exotic vegetation including canopy level Brazilian pepper. Groundcover consists of ragweed (Ambrosia artimisifolia), dog fennel, Spanish needle (Bidens alba), balsam apple (Momordica charantia), and grapevine (Vitis rotundifolia). 7 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 633 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Protected Species Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com The various listed species which may occur in the corresponding FLUCCS communities are shown below in Table 3. TABLE 3. PROTECTED SPECIES LIST ACCORDING TO FLUCCS CATEGORY FLUCCS POTENTIAL LISTED SPECIES SCIENTIFIC NAME DESIGNATED STATUS FWC OR FDACS FWS 513 American Alligator Alligator mississippiensis SSC T(S/A) Everglades Mink Mustela vison evergladensis T - Little Blue Heron Egretta caerulea T - Reddish Egret Egretta rufescens T - Snail Kite Rorstrhamus sociabilis E E Tricolored Heron Egretta tricolor T - Wood Stork Mycteria americana T T 619 NONE - - - 641 American Alligator Alligator mississippiensis SSC T(S/A) Everglades Mink Mustela vison evergladensis T - Florida Bonneted Bat Eumops floridanus Florida Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis pratensis T - Little Blue Heron Egretta caerulea T - Reddish Egret Egretta rufescens T - Snail Kite Rorstrhamus sociabilis E E Tricolored Heron Egretta tricolor T - Wood Stork Mycteria americana T T 740 Burrowing Owl Speotyto cunicularia T - Gopher Tortoise Gopherus polyphemus T - 814 NONE - - - Abbreviations Agencies: Status: FDACS = Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services CE = Commercially Exploited FWC = Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission E = Endangered FWS = United States Fish and Wildlife Service SSC = Species of Special Concern T = Threatened T(S/A) = Threatened/Similarity of Appearance 5.0 RESULTS All relevant species observed on the Subject Property are detailed in Table 4 and any listed species observed are specifically noted. See Figure 5 below for transects and field results. 8 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 634 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Protected Species Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Figure 5. Transect Map & Field Results TABLE 4. SPECIES OBSERVED ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME OBSERVATIONS LISTED SPECIES? STATUS BIRDS Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura DV N - MAMMALS Black Rat Rattus rattus DV N - Eastern Cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus DV N - REPTILES Brown Anole Anolis sagrei DV N - AMPHIBIANS NONE - - - - PLANTS NONE - - - - * = protected species Abbreviations Observations: Observations: Status: C = Cavity N = Nest CE = Commercially Exploited DB = Day Bed OH = Observed Hole/Burrow FE = Federally Endangered DV = Direct Visual OT = Observed Tracks FT = Federally Threatened HV = Heard Vocalization(s) R = Remains SE = State Endangered MT = Marked Tree S = Scat SSC = Species of Special Concern ST = State Threatened 9 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 635 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Protected Species Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com The Subject Property does have community types in which listed species could reside. Below are discussions of listed species that could potentially utilize the site. During permitting, the following listed species concerns may be raised by the agencies: Figure 6. Florida Bonneted Bat Consultation Area Florida Bonneted Bat (Eumops floridana) (FBB) The Subject Property falls within the United States Fish & Wildlife (USFWS) Florida Bonneted Bat Consultation Area (see Figure 6 above). During the species survey, a tree to tree cavity survey was also conducted and no potential tree/bat cavities were observed. The Subject Property is surrounded by development on all sides. Prior to development or permitting activities, USFWS will likely not require acoustic surveys to further determine presence or absence of FBB roosts or foraging on the property. 10 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 636 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Protected Species Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Figure 7. Florida Panther Information Florida Panther (Felis concolor coryi) The Subject Property does not fall within the USFWS Florida Panther Habitat Zones or Consultation Area. See Figure 7 for Florida panther information as it relates to the Subject Property. Consultation with the USFWS will likely not be necessary for Florida panther. 11 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 637 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Protected Species Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Figure 8. Wood Stork Information Wood Stork (Mycteria americana) The Subject Property falls within the core foraging area (estimated at 18.6 miles) of at least one (1) wood stork colony in Collier County (see Figure 8). Consultation with USFWS may be necessary for wood stork and wood stork foraging if wetlands will be impacted on the property. 12 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 638 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Protected Species Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Figure 9. Florida Black Bear Information Florida Black Bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) The Subject Property falls within the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission’s (FWC) mapped range for Florida black bear. Telemetry points from tagged bears have been documented in the vicinity of the Subject Property. See Figure 9 for black bear mappings as they relate to the Subject Property. The County may require the Client to implement FWC-approved bear-proof waste receptacles and education measures on the property. 13 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 639 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Protected Species Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com Figure 10. Bald Eagle Information Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leococephalus) The Subject Property does not fall within 0.50-miles of any FWC documented bald eagle nests. See Figure 10 for bald eagle mappings as they relate to the Subject Property. 6.0 SUMMARY No listed species or signs of listed species were observed on the Subject Property. The small size of the property and surrounding development likely preclude most wildlife usage. 14 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 640 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Protected Species Survey Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com 7.0 REFERENCES Atlas of Florida Plants. Institute for Systematic Botany. https://florida.plantatlas.usf.edu/ Ashton, Ray E. and Patricia S. “The Natural History and Management for the Gopher Tortoise.” Krieger Publishing Company. Malabar, Florida. 2008. Collier County Property Appraiser. http://www.collierappraiser.com Cox, James; Inkley, Douglas; and Kautz, Randy. “Ecology and Habitat Protection Needs of Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) Populations Found on Lands Slated for Large-Scale Development in Florida.” Nongame Wildlife Program Technical Report No. 4. December 1987. http://www.fwspubs.org/doi/suppl/10.3996/062015-JFWM-055/suppl_file/062015-jfwm- 055.s2.pdf?code=ufws-site FLEPPC 2019 List of Invasive Plant Species. Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council. https://www.fleppc.org/list/list.htm “Florida’s Endangered and Threatened Species”- Official List. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Updated December 2018. http://myfwc.com/media/1515251/threatened-endangered-species.pdf http://myfwc.com/imperiledspecies/ Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification (FLUCCS) Handbook. Florida Department of Transportation. January 1999. http://www.fdot.gov/geospatial/documentsandpubs/fluccmanual1999.pdf http://www.fdot.gov/geospatial/doc_pubs.shtm Weaver, Richard E. and Anderson, Patti J. “Notes on Florida’s Endangered and Threatened Plants.” Bureau of Entomology, Nematology and Plant Pathology – Botany Section. Contribution No. 38, 5th Edition. 2010. http://freshfromflorida.s3.amazonaws.com/fl-endangered-plants.pdf http://www.freshfromflorida.com/Divisions-Offices/Plant-Industry/Bureaus-and-Services/Bureau-of- Entomology-Nematology-Plant-Pathology/Botany/Florida-s-Endangered-Plants 15 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 641 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Environmental Data for PUDA Earth Tech Environmental, LLC www.eteflorida.com APPENDIX D Full Page Exhibits 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 642 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) HIALEAHORLANDOHOLLYWOODCLEARWATERCAPE CORALTALLAHASSEEJACKSONVILLECORAL SPRINGSPEMBROKE PINESSAINT PETERSBURGSANTA BARBARA BLVDDAVIS BLVDRADIO RDGOLDEN GATE PKYCOLLIER BLVD RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK RDCOUNTY BARN RD LAKEWOOD BLVDTAMIAMI TRL EKINGS WAYPOLLY AVEWHITAKER RD39TH ST SW32ND AVE SW44TH ST SW 70TH ST SW68TH ST SWSANTA BARBARA BLVD25TH AVE SW24TH AVE SWALLEY KINGS LAKE BLVDCOMMERCIAL BLVD HAWAII B LVD 47 TH S T SW BELVILLE BLVDLAMBTON LNHOLLOW DRCAPE SABLE DR58TH ST SWDENT DRSABAL LAKE DR 28TH PL SWRADIO RDCOLLIER BLVDSUBJECT PROPERTYOCOLLIERCOUNTYG:\ETEnv Documents\PROJECTS\COLLIER\Bembridge PUD\GIS\8.5x11 Location Map.mxd / 10:43:12 AMSUBJECT PROPERTYEARTH TECH ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC 10600 JOLEA AVENUE BONITA SPRINGS, FLORIDA 34135 PHONE (239) 304-0030 FAX (239) 324-0054 WWW.ETEFLORIDA.COMEARTH TECH ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC 10600 JOLEA AVENUE BONITA SPRINGS, FLORIDA 34135 PHONE (239) 304-0030 FAX (239) 324-0054 WWW.ETEFLORIDA.COMBembridge PUDCollier County, FloridaProjectLocation MapMap Type06/10/20Date9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 643 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) SANTA BARBARA BLVD015030075FeetSubject PropertyG:\ETEnv Documents\PROJECTS\COLLIER\Bembridge PUD\GIS\8.5x11 Aerial Map Horizontal.mxd / 4:08:46 PMONote:1. 2020 Aerial obtained from Collier County Property Appraiser2. Subject Property boundaryobtained from Davidson EngineeringEARTH TECH ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC 10600 JOLEA AVENUE BONITA SPRINGS, FLORIDA 34135 PHONE (239) 304-0030 FAX (239) 324-0054 WWW.ETEFLORIDA.COMEARTH TECH ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC 10600 JOLEA AVENUE BONITA SPRINGS, FLORIDA 34135 PHONE (239) 304-0030 FAX (239) 324-0054 WWW.ETEFLORIDA.COMBembridge PUDCollier County, FloridaProjectAerial MapMap Type7/30/20DateAffordable HousingDevelopment Area(3.77 Ac)Proposed CountyPump Station(1.33 Ac)9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 644 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) SANTA BARBARA BLVD015030075FeetSubject PropertySite PlanG:\ETEnv Documents\PROJECTS\COLLIER\Bembridge PUD\GIS\8.5x11 Site Plan.mxd / 5:04:25 PMONote:1. 2020 Aerial obtained from Collier County Property Appraiser2. Subject Property boundaryobtained from Davidson EngineeringEARTH TECH ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC 10600 JOLEA AVENUE BONITA SPRINGS, FLORIDA 34135 PHONE (239) 304-0030 FAX (239) 324-0054 WWW.ETEFLORIDA.COMEARTH TECH ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC 10600 JOLEA AVENUE BONITA SPRINGS, FLORIDA 34135 PHONE (239) 304-0030 FAX (239) 324-0054 WWW.ETEFLORIDA.COMBembridge PUDCollier County, FloridaProjectSite PlanMap Type7/30/20Date9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 645 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) SANTA BARBARA BLVD015030075FeetSubject PropertyPreserve (0.12 Ac)G:\ETEnv Documents\PROJECTS\COLLIER\Bembridge PUD\GIS\8.5x11 Preserve Map.mxd / 10:22:51 AMONote:1. 2020 Aerial obtained from Collier County Property Appraiser2. Subject Property boundaryobtained from Davidson EngineeringEARTH TECH ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC 10600 JOLEA AVENUE BONITA SPRINGS, FLORIDA 34135 PHONE (239) 304-0030 FAX (239) 324-0054 WWW.ETEFLORIDA.COMEARTH TECH ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC 10600 JOLEA AVENUE BONITA SPRINGS, FLORIDA 34135 PHONE (239) 304-0030 FAX (239) 324-0054 WWW.ETEFLORIDA.COMBembridge PUDCollier County, FloridaProjectPreserve Area MapMap Type8/3/20Date9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 646 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA)       9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 647 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA)       9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 648 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA)       9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 649 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA)       9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 650 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA)       9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 651 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA)       9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 652 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA)       9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 653 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA)       9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 654 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA)       9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 655 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA)       9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 656 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA)       9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 657 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA)       9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 658 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA)       9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 659 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA)       9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 660 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA)       9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 661 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA)       9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 662 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA)       9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 663 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA)       9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 664 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA)       9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 665 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA)       9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 666 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA)       9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 667 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA)       9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 668 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA)       9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 669 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA)       9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 670 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA)       9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 671 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA)       9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 672 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA)       9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 673 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Collier County School District School Impact Analysis Application Instructions: Submit one copy of completed application and location map for each new residential project requiring a determination of school impact to the Planning Department of the applicable local government. This application will not be deemed complete until all applicable submittal requirements have been submitted. Please be advised that additional documentation/information may be requested during the review process. For information regarding this application process, please contact the Facilities Management Department at 239-377-0267. Please check [¥] type of application request (one only): [ ] School Capacity Review [ ] Exemption Letter [ ] Concurrency Determination [ ] Concurrency Determination Amendment For descriptions of the types of review please see page 3, _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I. Project Information: Project Name:___________________________________________ Municipality:_________________________________ Parcel ID#: (attach separate sheet for multiple parcels): _______________________________________________________ Location/Address of subject property: ____________________________________________________ (Attach location map) Closest Major Intersection: _______________________________________________________________________________ II. Ownership/Agent Information: Owner/Contract Purchaser Name(s): _____________________________________________________________________ Agent/Contact Person: ________________________________________________________________________________ (Please note that if agent or contact information is completed the District will forward all information to that person) Mailing address: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Telephone#: _____________________________ Fax: _________________________Email_________________________ I hereby certify the statements and/or information contained in this application with any attachments submitted herewith are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. _____________________________________________________ _____________________________ Owner or Authorized Agent Signature Date _________________________________________________________________________________________ III.Development Information Project Data (Unit Types defined on page 2 of application) Current Land Use Designation:Proposed Land Use Designation: Current Zoning:Proposed Zoning: Project Acreage: Unit Type:SF MF MH C G Total Units Currently Allowed by Type: Total Units Proposed by Type: Is this a phased project: Yes or No If yes, please complete page 2 of this application. Date/time stamp:___________________________ Bembridge Emergency Services Complex RPUD & CFPUD Collier County 00400246406 East Side of Santa Barbara Blvd (see attached location map) Davis Blvd/Santa Barbara Blvd Owner: Collier County, a Political Subdivision of the State of Florida Leaser: McDowell Housing Parters (99-Year Lease Agreement) Jessica Harrelson, AICP, Senior Planner, Davidson Engineering, Inc. 4365 Radio Rd, Suite 201, Naples, FL 34104 239.434.6060 N/A jessica@davidsonengineering.com 6.18.2020 Undeveloped Multi-Family Bembridge Emergency Services Complex CFPUD & RPUD No Change 32 82 ✔ 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 674 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Worksheet is required to be completed by the Applicant only if the project is to be phased: Unit Type Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6 Yr7 Yr8 Yr9 Yr10 Yr 11-20 20+ Years SF MF MH C G Totals by Yr Grand Total Grand Total Insert totals by unit type by years. Unit Types: SF = Single Family MF = Multi-Family/Apartments MH = Mobile Homes C = Condo/Co-Op G = Government EXAMPLE: Unit Type Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6 Yr7 Yr8 Yr9 Yr10 Yr 11-20 20+ Years SF 25 25 25 25 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MF 50 0 0 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MH N/A CN/A GN/A Totals by Yr 75 25 25 25 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Grand Total 150 . 2 82 82 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 675 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Types of Reviews: School Impact Analysis: This review should be divided into two categories: -School Capacity Review (land use and rezonings), and; -Concurrency Determinations (site plans and subdivisions). School Capacity Review is the review of a project in the land use and rezoning stage of development. It is a review of the impact of the development on school capacity and is considered long range planning. This may be a review resulting in mitigation being required. In situations where the applicant may be required to mitigate, capacity may be reserved dependent on the type of mitigation. Concurrency Determination is the review of residential site plans and subdivisions to determine whether there is available capacity. When capacity is determined to be available a School Capacity Determination Letter (SCADL) will be issued verifying available capacity to the applicant and the local government. If a project exceeds the adopted level of service standards, the applicant is afforded the option of a negotiation period that may or may not result in an executed/recorded mitigation agreement Mitigation at this stage is expressed as a Proportionate Share Mitigation Agreement. For those residential developments that may have an impact but are otherwise exempt from concurrency, an exemption letter will be prepared for the applicant upon request. For those residential developments that are determined to not have an impact, a letter of no impact will be prepared for the applicant upon request. Exemption Letter: An applicant may request an Exemption Letter as documentation for the local government. These are projects that would be exempt from school concurrency review or projects that do not impact the public schools. Exemptions from school concurrency are limited to existing single family or mobile home lots of record; amendments to previously approved site plans or plats that do not increase the number of dwelling units or change the dwelling unit type; age restricted communities with no permanent residents under the age of 18; or residential site plans or plats or amendments to site plans or plats that generate less than one student; or are authorized as a Development of Regional Impact (Chapter 380, F.S.) as of July 1, 2005. Concurrency Determination Amendment: An applicant may request an amendment to a previously issued School Concurrency Determination or to an application being processed. This review may require additional staff time beyond the initial concurrency determination review and results in a modified determination being issued. An amendment could result in a negotiation period and/or a mitigation agreement being issued or a previously approved determination being modified and reissued. 3 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 676 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) §¨¦I-75 S §¨¦I-75 N -75 DAVIS BLVD RADIO RD/CR 856 COUNTY BARN RDSANTA BARBARA BLVDSANTA BARBARA BLVDDAVIDSON ENGINEERING, INC. 4365 RADIO ROAD, SUITE 201 NAPLES, FL 34104 PHONE: 239-434-6060 BEMBRIDGE EMERGENCY SERVICES COMPLEX LOCATION MAP SOURCES: COLLIER COUNTY GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS (2020 AERIAL) 010.5 Miles PUD BOUNDARY TRACT 'A-1' - 5.11 ACRES Legend ¯ 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 677 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Bembridge Emergency Services Complex CFPUD & RPUD PUDA-PL20200000564 June 18, 2020 1 www.davidsonengineering.com PPUBLIC FACILITIES LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) ANALYSIS The Bembridge Emergency Services Complex CFPUD and RPUD is an existing PUD and comprises approximately ±39.82-acres. The PUD is located on the east side of Santa Barbara Boulevard, south of Radio Road and north of Davis Boulevard. The purpose of PUD Amendment is to request an increase in residential density from 6 units per acre to 16 units per acre, using the Affordable Housing Density Bonus, for a maximum of 82 residential units. For this comparative analysis, the site will be conceptually developed to the maximum standards using the proposed zoning. Summary for Existing Use: Calusa Park Elementary School Collier County EMS Station #79 Summary for Proposed Change in Use: Multi-Family Residential (Apartments): 82 Units The Capital Improvement Element of the Growth Management Plan establishes Levels of Service for the following: Arterial and Collector Roads Surface Water Management Systems Potable Water Systems Sanitary Sewer Systems Solid Waste Disposal Facilities Parks and Recreation Facilities Public School Facilities Each of the areas will be examined for the development in this summary report. Arterial and Collector Roads See included Traffic Impact Statement for Level of Service. The level of service is not significantly or adversely impacted by the proposed build-out. There is adequate and sufficient roadway capacity to accommodate the proposed development’s generated trips without adversely affecting the adjacent roadway network level of service. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 678 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Bembridge Emergency Services Complex CFPUD & RPUD PUDA-PL20200000564 June 18, 2020 2 www.davidsonengineering.com Surface Water Management Systems Currently the site’s surface water management system is designed within a master stormwater system that is already in place and permitted. During the time of any development order permitting, the site’s stormwater management system will be designed in accordance with LDC section 6.5.01. The stormwater management system for the site has been approved by South Florida Water Management District under Permit No. 11-02037-P. Therefore, no level of service issues will be created by the proposed site build-out conditions with respect to surface water management. Potable Water and Sanitary Sewer Systems Water service to the project is and will be continued to be provided by Collier County Public Utilities via an existing 16” water main within the Santa Barbara Blvd. R.O.W. The future water service line size and fire protection mains will be determined during the time of SDP permitting and whether it is necessary to account for potable/irrigation. Wastewater treatment is and will be continued to be provided via existing 4” force mains located within the Santa Barbara Blvd right-of-way. The future connection size for the 5.11-acre development will be determined during time of SDP permitting. Table 1 – Previously Approved Level of Service for 5.11-acre parcel Project Capacity - RESIDENTIAL A = Type of Unit B = Number of Units C = Population per Unit D = Total Population (B x C) E = Per Capita Flow (gpd) F = Total Average Daily Flow (gpd) (D x E) G = Peak hour flow (gpm) Residence* 32 2.5 80 100 8,000 23.7 *100 gal/day per person and 2.5 people per household = 250 GPD per residential unit per Collier County Design Criteria, Part 2 "Wastewater Collection and Transmission Systems" 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 679 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Bembridge Emergency Services Complex CFPUD & RPUD PUDA-PL20200000564 June 18, 2020 3 www.davidsonengineering.com Build-out conditions are shown in the table of calculations below. Table 2 – Proposed Conceptual Development Level of Service Project Capacity - RESIDENTIAL A = Type of Unit B = Number of Units C = Population per Unit D = Total Population (B x C) E = Per Capita Flow (gpd) F = Total Average Daily Flow (gpd) (D x E) G = Peak hour flow (gpm) Residence* 82 2.5 205 100 20,500 59.0 *100 gal/day per person and 2.5 people per household = 250 GPD per residential unit per Collier County Design Criteria, Part 2 "Wastewater Collection and Transmission Systems" 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 680 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 4365 Radio Road • Suite 201 • Naples, FL 34104 • P: 239.434.6060 • www.davidsonengineering.com Civil Engineering • Planning • Permitting D esigningE xcellence M E M O R A N D U M September 14, 2020 To: Timothy Finn, AICP, Principal Planner, Collier County Zoning Division From: Sean Sammon, Planner Reviewed By: Jessica Harrelson, AICP, Senior Planner RE: Bembridge PUDA – Neighborhood Information Meeting Summary Davidson Engineering conducted a Neighborhood Information Meeting regarding the Bembridge Emergency Services Complex Planned Unit Development Amendment on Thursday, September 10, 2020, at 5:30pm. The meeting was held at New Hope Ministries, located at 7675 Davis Boulevard, Naples, FL 34104 on the second floor of the Event Center (Room 212). The meeting was also offered on-line, via Zoom. There was a total of 6 in-person attendees from the public, and two individuals from the public that participated virtually. The list of individuals below, associated with the project, also participated in the meeting: - Jessica Harrelson, Davidson Engineering (in-person) - Sean Sammon, Davidson Engineering (in-person) - Timothy Finn, Collier County (in-person) - Ariana Brendle, McDowell Housing (Zoom) - Chuck Hollis, McDowell Housing (Zoom) Jessica Harrelson, Agent for the Applicant, began the presentation at approximately 5:30pm and reviewed the details of the PUD Amendment request. (A PDF copy of the PowerPoint Presentation is attached for reference). During and following the presentation, attendees asked questions and gave comments. The following list is a summary of the questions and comments along with responses given by the agent in bold. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 681 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 2 x Roy Anderson: “The whole area was designated an Emergency Services Complex?” Response: It’s called the Bembridge Emergency Services Complex, it’s designated and permitted currently for residential and community facilities uses. x Roy Anderson: “So how does it come about that part of the Emergency Services Complex land was given up for residential project?” Response: It’s a residential and community facilities PUD, it’s both, that portion of the project has always been designated for residential uses. x Angelo Quieto: “So they wanted to go from 6 per unit acre, to go for how many up to? What was the original?” Response: Right, we’re going from 6 units per acre up to 16 units per acre on the 5.1-acre lot. x Angelo Quieto: “How many units would it have been in the original what it was?” Response: It would have been 30 – 31 units, now to 82 units. x Angelo Quieto: “Is that Bembridge or the County’s request?” Response: This is a County initiated project, and the County has entered into a long-term lease agreement with McDowell Housing Partners to develop this as affordable housing community. x Angelo Quieto: “Who’s idea, if you know, like I mean, if they wanted to go from the 30 to the 80?” Response: There’s a need for affordable housing in Collier County and they initiated this project, and we’re taking advantage of the density bonus units that are available for the property to maximize what is needed in the County. x Roy Anderson: “[Setbacks] Is that to the edge of the pavement or the edge of the Right-of- Way, the 50 feet?” Response: It should be from the back of the curb. Along the Right-of-Way, yes. x Angelo Quieto: “[reduction in width for Landscape Buffer along eastern boundary] So you’re saying that supposed to be 15 feet and they’re changing that to 7?” Response: 7, yes, and this is adjacent to the existing lake tract. x Angelo Quieto: “All of the deviations, how do you find that, has this gone before the County and has that been approved yet for that?” Response: We haven’t been to hearing yet, we have gone through 2 reviews at Staff Level and we have received approval from all reviewers, the next step is to be scheduled for hearings. x Angelo Quieto: “Now will they have to go before the Planning Board?” Response: It will go before the CCPC and the BCC. And if you were notified via letter about tonight’s meeting you will be notified by the County about the Hearing dates as well. x Roy Anderson: “This has to go before the Planning Board, the Planning Commission as well as the BCC? Response: Correct. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 682 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 3 x Ann Quieto: “They know to track it between the school, and the ambulances how far those setbacks have to be? And then have another place for where the children come out [of school]?” Response: Well we are constructing a turn lane to allow people to get off the main road and turn into the site. x Ann Quieto: “They can’t if the ambulance is coming, it’s a red light, and if they stop to let the school traffic out, that’s another thing. I live this far down, the traffic goes way past where the tower…[traffic concerns on Santa Barbara]” x Response: Off of Santa Barbara? You’re still noticing traffic issues with the increments that have been in, where the ambulance comes out? This project has no negative impact on this roadway network. We’ll make note of your concerns. x Angelo Quieto: “’Been fine with the 30 units rather than the 80’, commented about the neighborhood with other areas of similar developments and the impacts to traffic lights to a Wal-Mart near the Habitat…” Response: The Habitat development, I believe is owner-occupied, whereas this is going to be a rental community. x Ann Quieto: “There’s not enough rental communities around…” Response: The County has done a study and has determined a need for affordable housing in this County. x Roy Anderson: “I’m from Countryside and I’ve heard a lot of complaints about the Emergency Facility across the way with the Fire engine going off, and has impacts to our neighborhood, we’ve been seriously impacted by that facility, we hear this size of the facility is now tripled, there’s going to be turning impacts, 80-100 cars in the site. There’s a 50’ setback from Santa Barabara, and a 20’ buffer, what is that about? Response: There’s a 20’ setback on the internal boundaries, we decrease the road setback from 75’ to 50’. x Roy Anderson: “We’re not very pleased to hear of the increase on height, there will be some visual impact…” Response: I’ll be glad to email many of you our Traffic Impact Statement that was prepared by our Traffic Engineer that states that the roads will be continuing to be operating at their adopted Level of Service. x Carlos Blanci: “I know it was discussed that they’re were going to put something on the wooded area on the side of the northern boundary of the [entrance of the school] development, there’s 6 acres” Response: That’s not part of this development. x Anita Blanci: “6 months ago we’re at a meeting at the CAT station for affordable housing that will be put there, we thought that that was this meeting was for.” Response: That’s the school’s entrance right there, the PUD boundary stops right there. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 683 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 4 x Carlos Blanci: “My fear is that they’re going to build this one then you’ll go to the other side of the street/driveway…” Response: Not sure if there’s a development going in there, I can look into it for you and let you know. x Roy Anderson: “What was the reason for increasing it from 31 units to 80 units?” Response: To meet the County’s need for affordable housing. x Roy Anderson: “So you’re going for the max that’s allowed for zoning? Without any consideration on the impact to the neighborhood?” Response: Yes. We did do an evaluation of compatibility and consistency with the neighborhood, that’s why we’re going through this process. x William Cannon: “How long is the commitment to maintain this affordable housing? Whose commitment is that? Will they manage that property?” Response: I believe it’s 30 years, but I can double check. That would be McDowell Housing, they’re the developer. The County’s going to maintain ownership of the land. McDowell owns the building. x William Cannon: “Where’s the nearest CAT bus stop?” Response: There’s several bus stops along Santa Barbara, I don’t know where the exact proximity of the stops is, but I can get that information to you. x William Cannon: “How many parking spaces do you have per unit?” Response: We have 163 spaces on site. This is parking requirements, we’re required to have 159, we’re providing 163 spaces. x Roy Anderson: “Will there be a turning lane for entering into the area, and a loading area so the street will be redesigned?” Response: Yes, there will be a right turn lane constructed on Santa Barbara into the site. x Carlos Blanci: “Will there be a left turn lane when you leave the complex to go south or do they have to take a right?” Response: It’s going to be a right, right in, right out, yes. x Anita Blanci: “I think the biggest concern would be you have all the young children walking along Santa Barbara to Calusa Elementary with more cars coming in and out of the project” Response: Sidewalks will be constructed and reconstructed, and a pedestrian interconnect will be provided from our site into Calusa park. The school will construct a sidewalk from their bus loop all the way to our project. They don’t promote children walking across Santa Barbara, they likely take a bus from the western developments. x Roy Anderson: “Will there be another separate entrance and exit off of Santa Barbara for this project?” Response: Yes, I’ll show you. It will be just south of the school’s entrance. Our turn lane will connect into the turn lane entrance for the school. x Roy Anderson: “Is there going to be a conflict with the Fire Department getting pretty close to their location?” 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 684 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 5 Response: No conflict. x Carlos Blanci: “What is the pump station?” Response: It’s part of the County’s utility infrastructure. It will serve the greater area, more than just our project. I can get more information on the pump station plans for you. This has already been planned for some time as part of a master system. Wastewater station, yes. x William Cannon: “Flood elevation question regarding heights?” Response: I can provide the information to you from our engineers, that is an engineering question. The site will be permitted through South Florida Water Management District. I will get all of you that information as long as you left your email and phone number. x Angelo Quieto: “This is actually the first meeting you have had on this particular project?” Response: Yes, this is the one and only required NIM that we’re required to have prior to hearing. All property owners within 500’ of the project were notified and could participate virtually, so if they live out-of-state, they could participate via Zoom, we gave everyone an equal opportunity to participate. x Roy Anderson: “What stage is the project now? In preliminary planning or it’s not in final design stage?” Response: We’re not in final design stage, we do have an engineer, our firm is working on those plans now, and we just submitted for our first SDP with Collier County, but we can’t move forward with SDP permits until the PUD is approved. x William Davis (ONLINE): “What is the County’s Median Income?” Response: The County’s Median Income is $82,300. The developer has agreed to construct 13 rental units that are in or below the very low income level, 50 rental units for low income, and 19 for the low-moderate income level, based on household size and the rent limits (table provided). x Roy Anderson: “It’s too bad that there wasn’t a meeting public before the decision was made before the development was decided to max out the units.” Response: That’s why we’re here today, to get everyone’s concerns/input, we haven’t been to hearing yet. x Carlos Blanci: “It seems like affordable housing is going in one area of the county, you would think it would spread out a little bit.” Response: The private developers and Collier County are looking at other areas. x William Cannon: “Comment about affordable housing in the county…” Response: If you want, I can send you information on base flood elevation and where we’re designing at, any other information related to the project. x Angelo Quieto: “Who’s idea as to why they increased from 30 to 80 units. Why are you asking for deviations within the project, you’re asking for something not there, something special, that should require more, deviations to make it less?” Response: We are maxing out the Affordable Housing Density Bonus allowed to the site. With PUD’s you’re allowed to request deviations to the LDC to meet your specific design 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 685 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 6 elements. The deviations are 4 related to our project, 2 of them don’t pertain to our project, to solidify and be consistent with what was already approved for our project. x Roy Anderson: “What’s the next step on the project? What’s the timing to go to the CCPC? Response: We should be getting our hearing dates next week, I can get you the dates and you will be notified by the county. If you have any additional questions, feel free to email me or call me and thank you for coming. [Meeting Adjourned] 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 686 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 687 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) EXISTING ZONING:BEMBRIDGE EMERGENCY SERVICES COMPLEX Residential PUD and Community Facilities PUD(RPUD and CFPUD)BEMBRIDGE EMERGENCY SERVICES COMPLEX9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 688 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) BEMBRIDGE EMERGENCY SERVICES COMPLEX PUDSUBJECT PARCELTRACT A-1±5.1-ACRES9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 689 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 82 TOTAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS ™16 Units/Acre @ 5.1 acres9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 690 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) TRACT A-1±5.1-ACRESNORTH9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 691 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 692 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT ACCESS AND TURN LANEPEDESTRIAN INTERCONNECTNORTH9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 693 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) PRINCIPAL STUCTURES:ƒ50’ FRONT YARD ƒ(Santa Barbara Blvd.)ƒ20’ SIDE / REAR YARDSƒ(Internal Boundaries)NORTH50’20’20’20’9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 694 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 695 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Deviation #2 seeks relief from LDCsection 4.06.02 C.4., “Type DLandscape Buffer,” which requiresa 20-foot Type “D” landscapebuffer along rights-of-way fordevelopments of 15 acres ormore, toinstead allow a 15-footwideType “D” buffer on Tracts“A”and “A-1” along Santa BarbaraBoulevard.15’ Type D Buffer9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 696 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Deviation #3 seeks relief from LDCSection 4.06.02 C.2., “Type BLandscape Buffer,” which requiresa 15’ Type ‘B’ buffer betweenmulti-family residential and acommunity facility, toinsteadallowa 7’ Type ‘B’ buffer alongtheeasternpropertylineofTract“A-1-Residential”.7’ Type B Buffer9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 697 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Deviation #4 seeks relief from LDC Section4.05.04. G., “Parking Space Requirements,” whichrequires parking spaces for offices/clubhouses tobe parked at 50% normal requirements andaccessory recreational facilities for multi-familyprojects, toinstead require a total of four (4)parkingspaces for the office/clubhouse and noadditionalparking spaces for the accessoryrecreationalfacilitieson Tract “A-1”. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 698 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Deviation #5 seeks relief from LDCSection 4.06.02. C.4., “Type DLandscape Buffer,” which requiresa 20-foot Type ’D’ landscapebuffer along rights-of-way fordevelopments of 15 acres ormore, toinstead allow a 10-footwideType ‘D’ buffer along SantaBarbaraBoulevard and along theRoadwayEasement for Tract B.10’ Type D Buffer10’ Type D Buffer9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 699 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Deviation #6 seeks relief from LDCSection 4.05.02 Exhibit ‘A’, “Off-Street Parking Design Standards,”which permits a 2’ vehicularoverhang into any landscapebuffer that is 10’ or greater inwidth, toinstead allow vehicularoverhanginto the 7’ Type ‘B’bufferalong the easternboundaryof Tract “A-1-Residential”.9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 700 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) THE BEMBRIDGE PROJECT WILLHAVE NO NEGATIVE IMPACT ONTHE SURROUNDING ROADWAYNETWORK.9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 701 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 702 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 703 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 704 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) The Developer has agreed to construct 13 rental units for residents in or below the very low income category (50% or less of the County median income), 50 rental units for residents in the low income category (51 to 60% of the County median income) and 19 rental units for residents in the low to moderate income category (61 to 80% of the County median income).9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 705 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Bembridge Emergency Services Complex PUDA- PL20200000564 AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE I hereby certify that pursuant to Ordinance 2004-41, of the Collier County Land Development Code, I did cause the attached newspaper advertisement to appear and I did give notice by mail to the following property owners and/or condominium and civic associations whose members may be affected by the proposed land use changes of an application request for a Planned Unit Development Rezone and Growth Management Plan Amendment, at least 15 days prior to the scheduled Neighborhood Information Meeting. For the purposes of this requirement, the names and addresses of property owners shall be deemed those appearing on the latest tax rolls of Collier County and any other persons or entities who have made a formal request of the county to be notified. The said notice contained the laymen’s description of the site property of proposed change and the date, time, and place of a Neighborhood Information Meeting. Per the attached letters, property owner’s list, and copy of newspaper advertisement which are hereby made a part of this Affidavit of Compliance _________________________________________________ Jessica Harrelson, AICP State of Florida County of Collier The foregoing Affidavit of compliance was acknowledged before me this _15th_ day of _September 2020 by Jessica Harrelson, AICP, who is personally known to me. _____________________________________________ (Signature of Notary Public) (Notary Seal) Tocia Hamlin__________________________________ Printed Name of Notary 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 706 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 707 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 708 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 1NAME1NAME2NAME3NAME4NAME5NAME6FOLIO1150 WILDWOOD LAKES LLC1150 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #8 207NAPLES, FL 34104---0311560027011170 WILDWOOD LAKESBLVD #207 LLC563 EAGLE CREEK DRIVENAPLES, FL 34113---031156003506132 SANTA CLARA DR LAND TRUST 201 SANTA CLARA DRIVE UNIT 5NAPLES, FL 34104---0465730014062 VESTORS LLC15275 COLLIER BLVD #201/269NAPLES, FL 34119---046573001163434 HOLDINGS GROUP LLC8070 DREAM CATCHER CIR #2206NAPLES, FL 34119---046573001105434 HOLDINGS GROUP LLC8070 DREAM CATCHER CIRCLE #2206NAPLES, FL 34119---046573001626ABRAM, WAYNE C & ANN NSARALYN M MARQUIS7340 ST IVES WAY #3210NAPLES, FL 34104---028273750402ADUBATO, CHRISTOPHER P & ANNA 31 ECKERT DRLINCROFT, NJ 07738---031156007366AGUSHI, KRENAR & GENTIANA1430 WARING AVENUEBRONX, NY 10469---031156004505AIDA DOUZJIAN LIV TRUST1765 COURTYARD WAY #203NAPLES, FL 34112---031156000185ALCALA, ALAN OFIR SANCHEZFAVIOLA GATICA SANCHEZ1250 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #207NAPLES, FL 34104---031156006309ALEX PALLET INC21 CRONIN DRIVETORONTO M9B 4T7 CANADA 31156004725ALLAN FAMILY REALTY TRUST7360 PROVINCE WAY #4204NAPLES, FL 34104---606028405000289ALLEGRET, CATHERINE2310 PINEWOODS CIRNAPLES, FL 34105---031156006668ALLEGRET, CATHERINE2310 PINEWOODS CIRNAPLES, FL 34105---031156000402ALLEN FAMILY REV TRUST1190 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #103NAPLES, FL 34104---031156004068ALTERIO, FRANK C & MARY C7360 SAINT IVES WAY #2108NAPLES, FL 34104---028267500163ALVAREZ, MARIELA GAVIRIA169 SANTA CLARA DRIVE #5NAPLES, FL 34104---046573002968AMADOR, LINDA1275 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD # 207NAPLES, FL 34104---581831156000305AMEWAY LLC18524 ORLANDO RDFORT MYERS, FL 33967---0 31156005326AMEWAY LLC18524 ORLANDO RDFT MYERS, FL 33967---031156005287AMEWAY LLC18524 ORLANDO ROADFORT MYERS, FL 33967---0 31156004466ANA AGUILERA LLC108 SANTA CLARA DRIVEUNIT #15NAPLES, FL 34104---046573000601ANDERER, EMILY1254 ROBINSON AVE APT #5SAN DIEGO, CA 92103---031156006642ANDRE, JOSEPH H & SUZANNE F HEIDI M ANDREMICHAEL J ANDRE234 GLACIER AVE # 2FAIRBANKS, AK 99701---3632 28267500480ANDRZEJEWSKI, ADRIAN G20325 STERLING BAY LN W #JCORNELIUS, NC 28031---031156001320ANGELUS, LAURA LEI169 SANTA CLARA DRIVEUNIT 7NAPLES, FL 34104---046573003006ANNA SEGRETO REV TRUST204 FURSE LAKES CIR #C-1NAPLES, FL 34104---031156007324ANTAL, ROBERT & ADRIANA57 MISTY WELL DRIVERICHMOND HILL L4E 4J6 CANADA 31156003580ANTELO, FREDERICK SANDOVAL 1240 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #6NAPLES, FL 34104---031156005724APONTE, LAWRENCE G142 SANTA CLARA DR #15NAPLES, FL 34104---541746573001888ARCHAMBAULT, JENNIFER R1190 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD # 205NAPLES, FL 34104---580831156004262AREBALO, OSCAR201 SANTA CLARA DR #5NAPLES, FL 34104---046573004720ARMSTRONG, LESLIE JPATRICK S ARMSTRONG37 HETHERINGTON DRBOWMANVILLE L1C 3R2 CANADA 31156002866ASBL 2020 LLC2390 NORTHEAST 172ND STREETNORTH MIAMI BCH, FL 33160---0 24754201940ASDM 2018 LLC2390 NE 172 STNORTH MIAMI BCH, FL 33160---0 24754200983ASDM 2018 LLC2390 NE 172 STREETNORTH MIAMI BCH, FL 33160---0 24754203566ASDM 2018 LLC2390 NE 172 STREETNORTH MIAMI BCH, FL 33160---0 24754203906ASDM 2018 LLC2390 NE 172 STREETNORTH MIAMI BCH, FL 33160---0 24754204442ASDM 2018 LLC2390 NE 172 STREETNORTH MIAMI BCH, FL 33160---0 24754201982ASDM 2018 LLC2390 NE 172 STREETNORTH MIAMI, FL 33160---0 24754201403ASDM 2018 LLC2390 NE 172ND STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754204167ASDM 2019 LLC2390 NE 172 STREETMIAMI, FL 33160---024754200543ASDM 2019 LLC2390 NE 172 STREETNORTH MAIMI, FL 33160---0 24754201720ASDM 2019 LLC2390 NE 172 STREETNORTH MIAMI BCH, FL 33160---0 24754204264ASDM 2019 LLC2390 NE 172 STREETNORTH MIAMI, FL 33160---0 24754201681ASDM 2019 LLC2390 NE 172 STREETNORTH MIAMI, FL 33160---0 24754200064ASDM 2019 LLC2390 NE 172 STREET NORTHNORTH MIAMI, FL 33160---0 24754203362ASDM 2019 LLC2390 NE 172ND STREETNORTH MIAMI, FL 33160---0 24754203003ASDM 2020 LLC2390 NE 172 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754204002ASDM 2020 LLC2390 NE 172 STREETNORTH MIAMI BEAC, FL 33160---0 24754203760ASDM 2020 LLC2390 NE 172 STREETNORTH MIAMI BEAC, FL 33160---0 24754200284Notice: This data belongs to the Collier County Property Appraiser's Office (CCPA). Therefore, the recipient agrees not to represent this data to anyone as other than CCPA provided data. The recipient may not transfer this data to others without consent from the CCPA.Petition: PL20200000564 | Buffer: 500' | Date: 8/14/2020 | Site Location: Bembridge Emergency Services Complex CFPUD/RPUDPOList_500_PL202000005649.A.2.d Packet Pg. 709 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 2ASDM 2020 LLC 2390 NE 172 STREETNORTH MIAMI, FL 33160---0 24754202185ASDM 2020 LLC 2390 NE 172 STREETNORTH MIAMI, FL 33160---0 24754204361ASDM 2020 LLC 2390 NE 172ND STREETNORTH MIAMI BCH, FL 33160---0 24754202923ASDM 2021 LLC 2390 NE 172 STNORTH MIAMI BEAC, FL 33160---0 24754200569ASDM 2021 LLC 2390 NE 172 STNORTH MIAMI BEAC, FL 33160---0 24754204785ASDM INVESTMENT 2012 LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754203168ASDM INVESTMENT 2012 LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754203744ASDM INVESTMENT 2013 LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754204400ASDM INVESTMENT 2013 LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754203126ASDM INVESTMENT 2014 LLC 2390 N E 172 STREETNORTH MIAMI BCH, FL 33160---0 24754202046ASDM INVESTMENT 2014 LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754204222ASDM INVESTMENT 2014 LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754200381ASDM INVESTMENT 2014 LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754202004ASDM INVESTMENT 2014 LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754202965ASDM INVESTMENT 2014 LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754201966ASDM INVESTMENT 2015 LLC 2390 N E 172ND STREETNORTH MIAMI BCH, FL 33160---0 24754200721ASDM INVESTMENT 2015 LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754202509ASDM INVESTMENT 2015 LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754204565ASDM INVESTMENT 2015 LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754204248ASDM INVESTMENT 2015 LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754203841ASDM INVESTMENT 2015 LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754203100ASDM INVESTMENT 2015 LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754204523ASSAF, EMILE SAMAR ISSA 17222 THOMAS BAILLAIRGE PIERREFONDS H9J 3P3 CANADA 31156001809ASSAF, EMILE G SAMAR ISSA 17222 RUE THOMAS-BAILLARGE PIERREFONDS H9J 3P3 CANADA 31156006422ATHERTON, BRUCE & LINDA L 7360 SAINT IVES WAY #2301NAPLES, FL 34104---6099 28267500422AUK LLC 1260 WILDWOOD LAKES #102NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156006448AUK LLC 1260 WILDWOOD LAKES #102NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156005643AYEROV, ALLEN 38 PARK ST APT 11HFLORHAM PARK, NJ 07932---1736 31156000761AZAR, FLORA A CLAUDETTE AZAR KENYON JANINE AZAR 1185 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #201 NAPLES, FL 34104---031156002183BACHOVE, CRAIG & GAIL1615 FORUM PLACESTE 200WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33401---0 31156004107BAILEY, BEVERLY GJENNIFER GRAYLOCK3321 SUNSET KEY CIR #309PUNTA GORDA, FL 33955---0 28273750606BANK OF AMERICA N AC/O QUINTAIROS PRIETOWOOD & BOYER P A255 SOUTH ORANGE AVENUE SUITE 900 ORLANDO, FL 32801---031156003904BARBARA L ENGELS TRUST7360 SAINT IVES WAY #2206NAPLES, FL 34104---609828267500325BARDA, YANIVNAAMA YOSI7782 SCARLET CTNAPLES, FL 34104---067965017854BARDA, YANIV & NAAMA160 PLANTATION CIRNAPLES, FL 34104---640067965017650BARDHYLI, RUZHDI1280 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #306NAPLES, FL 34104---031156007609BARSELOU, JOANNE1190 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #207NAPLES, FL 34104---031156004301BATTAGLIA, JUANARGENTINA LLCPEKOS NAPLES LLC833 COLDSTREAM CTNAPLES, FL 34104---031156002769BATTELLO, SANDRO & JANE3710 PRICE CTMISSISSAUGA L5L 4S6 CANADA 31156005481BECKETT JR, JOHN F & MERRY C 8570 JULIA LNNAPLES, FL 34114---273631156006561BECKMAN, RUTH V1260 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD # 208NAPLES, FL 34104---580231156006723BELLA ROSSA REALTY GROUP LLC 2258 CHABLIS DRMACUNGIE, PA 18062---031156001922BENEDICT, JAY & PATRICIA ANN 43 WHITNEY STREETNORTHBOROUGH, MA 01532---0 31156007269BENITEZ, JORGE1220 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #101NAPLES, FL 34104---580631156004822BENN, JOHN M7780 SCARLET CTNAPLES, FL 34104---641467965017906BENYA, PAUL G3 CAMBRIDGE CTKENNEBUNK, ME 04043---0 28267500561BENYAK, RONALD7340 PROVINCE WAY #3204NAPLES, FL 34104---028380560006BERNARD III, JOHNLESLIE BERNARD788 PARK SHORE DRE-12NAPLES, FL 34103---031156000680BERNARD III, JOHN B & LESLIE A 788 PARK SHORE DRE-12NAPLES, FL 34103---031156005504BES TR, RICHARD JOHNCINDY DENISE BES TRBES FAMILY LAND TRUST 29 DENRICH AVETILLSONBURG N4G 4X5 CANADA 31156000583BESLIJA, SENAD & SEDIJA8267 VALIANT DRNAPLES, FL 34104---667324754202800BESLIJA, SENAD & SEDIJA8267 VALIANT DRNAPLES, FL 34104---667324754203524BIAGI, RUSSELL & LINDA7360 PROVINCE WAY #4209NAPLES, FL 34104---606128405000386BIANCHINI, FRED & JANET301 HASTINGS ROADMIDDLEBOROUGH, MA 02346---0 28273750486BILOUS, MARIIA2161 E 26TH STREETBROOKLYN, NY 11229---031156004327BLACK BOOK CAPITAL LLC11983 TAMIAMI TRAIL NSUITE 115NAPLES, FL 34110---046573004908BLACK BOOK CAPITAL LLC15275 COLLIER BLVD #201/269NAPLES, FL 34119---046573004924BLACK TR, VIRGINIA DAREUTD 5/8/96165 PLANTATION CIRNAPLES, FL 34104---644367965017003POList_500_PL202000005649.A.2.d Packet Pg. 710 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 3BLAIS, TINA M 1275 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD UNIT 2 205NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156000266BLANCO, CARLOS ANITA L HERWAGEN 178 PLANTATION CIR # 6 NAPLES, FL 34104---6400 67965017207BLUE STAR A&S LLC 2390 NE 172 STREETNORTH MIAMI BCH, FL 33160---0 24754202884BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754203469BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754201542BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BCH, FL 33160---0 24754200802BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BCH, FL 33160---0 24754200527BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BCH, FL 33160---0 24754200705BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BCH, FL 33160---0 24754200462BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BCH, FL 33160---0 24754200860BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BCH, FL 33160---0 24754200349BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BCH, FL 33160---0 24754203867BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BCH, FL 33160---0 24754200789BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BCH, FL 33160---0 24754200187BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BCH, FL 33160---0 24754200682BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BCH, FL 33160---0 24754200844BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BCH, FL 33160---0 24754200763BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BCH, FL 33160---0 24754200941BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BCH, FL 33160---0 24754200828BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BCH, FL 33160---0 24754200640BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BCH, FL 33160---0 24754202907BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BCH, FL 33160---0 24754203702BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BCH, FL 33160---0 24754203728BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BCH, FL 33160---0 24754200323BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BCH, FL 33160---0 24754200747BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BCH, FL 33160---0 24754203948BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BCH, FL 33160---0 24754200307BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BCH, FL 33160---0 24754200446BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BCH, FL 33160---0 24754200501BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BCH, FL 33160---0 24754200488BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BCH, FL 33160---0 24754200226BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BCH, FL 33160---0 24754200268BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BCH, FL 33160---0 24754200608BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BCH, FL 33160---0 24754200420BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BCH, FL 33160---0 24754202949BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BCH, FL 33160---0 24754200624BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BCH, FL 33160---0 24754200365BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BCH, FL 33160---0 24754200404BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BCH, FL 33160---0 24754203029BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754202648BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754201584BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754204060BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754203249BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754204303BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754202541BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754203508BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754202664BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754202347BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754202101BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754202143BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754201047BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754201827BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754201801BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754202062BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754201746BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754202428BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754202127BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754204183POList_500_PL202000005649.A.2.d Packet Pg. 711 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 4BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754202305BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754201908BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754202606BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754204044BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754201380BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754201500BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754202703BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754201144BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754201461BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754203061BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754202169BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754201102BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754202389BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754204507BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754201704BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754202321BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754203663BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754201186BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754202402BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754201649BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754202208BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754203443BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754201021BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754204345BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754201348BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754202583BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754201665BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754203485BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754204808BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754202363BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754201762BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754202224BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754202567BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754201322BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754203142BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754203184BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754203540BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754204426BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754201364BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754201063BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754203346BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754202282BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754202266BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754203223BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754201924BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754201005BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754204125BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754201209BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754204581BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754201487BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754201306BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754203825BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754204620BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754202088BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754203265BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754201267BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754202020BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754202444POList_500_PL202000005649.A.2.d Packet Pg. 712 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 5BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754203401BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754203427BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754204549BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754201283BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754201869BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754202622BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754202680BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754204468BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754204743BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754201445BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754202460BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754201429BLUE STAR BRIAR LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754204484BLUESTEIN, DANIEL 330 W 58TH ST #12GNEW YORK, NY 10019---0 31156004945BONDI, I JEAN 609 MAPLEWOOD CTPITTSBURGH, PA 15237---0 31156000729BORDA, ELIANA 193 SANTA CLARA DR #11NAPLES, FL 34104---0 46573004209BORES, CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH 14785 LEEWARD DRNAPLES, FL 34114---0 31156006846BOSHART, ROBERT JOHN NANCY MARY BOSHART 330 MILL STREET SOUTH #712BRAMPTON L6Y 3V3 CANADA 31156006066BPBS INVESTMENT LLC2390 NE 171ST STNORTH MIAMI BCH, FL 33160---0 24754200129BPBS INVESTMENT LLC2390 NE 171ST STNORTH MIAMI BCH, FL 33160---0 24754200103BPBS INVESTMENT LLC2390 NE 171ST STNORTH MIAMI BCH, FL 33160---0 24754200145BPBS INVESTMENT LLC2390 NE 171ST STNORTH MIAMI BCH, FL 33160---0 24754200048BPBS INVESTMENT LLC2390 NE 171ST STNORTH MIAMI BCH, FL 33160---0 24754200080BPBS INVESTMENT LLC2390 NE 171ST STNORTH MIAMI BCH, FL 33160---0 24754200161BRACA INVESTMENTS LLC8267 LAUREL LAKES WAYNAPLES, FL 34119---046573001765BRAIR INVESTMENTS LLC2390 NE 171ST STNORTH MIAMI BCH, FL 33160---0 24754202868BRAVO, LEONARDO4601 N PARK AVE #1611CHEVY CHASE, MD 20815---0 31156003166BRIAR INVESTMENTS LLC2390 NE 171ST STNORTH MIAMI BCH, FL 33160---0 24754202761BRIAR INVESTMENTS LLC2390 NE 171ST STNORTH MIAMI BCH, FL 33160---0 24754202842BRIAR INVESTMENTS LLC2390 NE 171ST STNORTH MIAMI BCH, FL 33160---0 24754202826BRIAR INVESTMENTS LLC2390 NE 171ST STNORTH MIAMI BCH, FL 33160---0 24754202787BRIAR INVESTMENTS LLC2390 NE 171ST STNORTH MIAMI BCH, FL 33160---0 24754202745BRIGNALL TR, LEONARD A & MARY LEONARD & MARY BRIGNALL TRUST UTD 8/6/017340 SAINT IVES WAY APT 3208NAPLES, FL 34104---609228273750363BRITTON, JAMES H & KAREN S4033 SELMA ROADSPRINGFIELD, OH 45502---028273750460BROZEK REV TRUST3923 LITTLETON BEND CTJACKSONVILLE, FL 32224---0 28405000409BRUNO, JOSEPH A & COLLEEN M 91 SUNSET DRIVESTUYVESANT, NY 12173---0 31156000062BRZOVSKI REVOCABLE TRUST1565 GARLAND CRESCENTPICKERING L1V 7B2 CANADA 46573004364BSR INVESTING & CONSULTING INC 1811 19TH ST SWNAPLES, FL 34117---046573003925BSR INVESTING & CONSULTING LLC 1811 19TH ST SWNAPLES, FL 34117---046573002269BSR INVESTING & CONSULTING LLC 6017 PINE RIDGE ROAD #373NAPLES, FL 34119---046573002900BUCKLEY, GERALD L & ANDREA B 7340 ST IVES WAY #3305NAPLES, FL 34104---028273750509BUCKNELL, TIFFANY REBOLETTI 1808 N 77TH CTELMWOOD PARK, IL 60707---0 31156001265BURCREST CAPITAL LLCHP EDIFICIO MOSSFON 2 PISOCALLE 54 ESTE PANAMA46573004704BURGARETTA, FRANK & PATRICIA 23 LENOX RDJACKSON, NJ 08527---6326 31156005708BUTLER, RICHARD & PAM9 SAWMILL HILL RDMECHANICVILLE, NY 12118---3101 24754204769BUTLER, TAMMY DJACQUELYN A MARTIN319 SE DOUGLAS #203LEE'S SUMMIT, MO 64063---0 31156001388C2S FLORIDA LLC44 W FLAGLER STREETSUITE 2300MIAMI, FL 33130---046573003242CALDERON, DIANA MILENA1265 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #205NAPLES, FL 34104---031156000664CAMARDA, ANALIA E124 SANTA CLARA DR APT 1NAPLES, FL 34104---541446573000960CAMILIERE, SUSAN EKENNETH D'ALESSANDRO618 GOLFERS LNBARTLETT, IL 60103---1536 31156003441CARCHIDI, MARK D & MARCIA G JOHN W & MARY A GORDON JR 370 COTUIT RDSANDWICH, MA 02563---2429 28405000344CAREY, AGNES7360 SAINT IVES WAY #2307NAPLES, FL 34104---028267500545CARMONA, CLARA INEZ177 SANTA CLARA DR APT 2NAPLES, FL 34104---543446573003226CARMONA, JAVIER & INES7773 SAVANNAH COURTNAPLES, FL 34104---046573000384CARPE DIEM HACIENDA LLC27830 HACIENDA EAST BLVD#204-CBONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135---0 31156006587CARPIO JR, JOSEPH JJEAN M MACDONALD-CARPIO62 ROSES FARM RDEAST HAVEN, CT 06512---4665 31156000444CARRANCO, MIGUEL ANGELMIRNA D DIAZ132 SANTA CLARA DR APT 15NAPLES, FL 34104---541546573001561CARROLL, GLENNDEWANNA JOLENE CARROLL168 PLANTATION CIRNAPLES, FL 34104---640067965017456POList_500_PL202000005649.A.2.d Packet Pg. 713 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 6CARTER JR, ROBERT H & HELEN C 7360 PROVINCE WAY APT 4310NAPLES, FL 34104---6062 28405000603CARZAL LLC 12936 VIOLINO LN #303NAPLES, FL 34105---0 46573001228CARZAL LLC 12936 VIOLINO LN #303NAPLES, FL 34105---0 46573004225CASTRO, RUDY B 1150 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #303NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156002743CATES, BRIAN & TERESA 2030 SNOOK DRNAPLES, FL 34102---0 31156001621CELLA PROPERTIES FL, LLC 1206 MIDDLE COUNTRY RDSELDEN, NY 11784---2524 31156000169CHACON, ALEXANDER JOSE BRITO M DEL CARMEN CHACON DE BRITO 1260 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #303 NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156006749CHACON, ANDREA C BRITO 1160 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #205NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156003069CHANG, JACKELIN LUCIA CASTILLO THOMAS REYES 1185 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #203 NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156002222CHAVEZ, ROSA 132 SANTA CLARA DRIVE #14NAPLES, FL 34104---0 46573001545CHAVIB, JULIET 193 SANTA CLARA DR #7NAPLES, FL 34104---0 46573004128CHAWANASUNTHORNPOT, PAWIN LEMANDA FRANKLIN 21164 HAYSHIRE COURT ASHBURN, VA 20147---0 31156002620CHEGWIDDEN, NIALL & CHERYL 4940 DEERFIELD WAY APT 201NAPLES, FL 34110---2308 24754203922CHERYL A IULIANO REV TRUST 13 JOHN ROADPEABODY, MA 01960---0 28380600005CHIARILLO, ROBERT M JACQUELINE T CHIARILLO 3 LINDSEY DRIVE LINCOLN, RI 02865---0 28381080006CHINITA PROPERTIES LLC 4610 SAINT CROIX LN #1037NAPLES, FL 34109---0 46573001642CHISMA LLC 7960 PRESERVE CIR # 627NAPLES, FL 34119---0 46573002544CHISMA LLC 7960 PRESERVE CIR # 627NAPLES, FL 34119---0 46573000740CHUMACHOK, SERGIY & LARYSA 1170 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #103NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156003263CIBELLI, ANTHONY & VERONICA 2258 CHABLIS DRMACUNGIE, PA 18062---0 31156005928CIBELLI, ANTHONY J 2258 CHABLIS DRMACUNGIE, PA 18062---0 31156006804CICCHELLI, ANALYN A 1304 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #6NAPLES, FL 34104---6478 24754202525CLARK, CHRIS & LISA 10 KIM PLKINGS PARK, NY 11754---5023 31156001964CLEMMENSEN, PAUL L & KRISTIN A 156 PLANTATION CIRNAPLES, FL 34104---6484 67965018206COB REALTY TRUST 21 DEER CROSSINGSEABROOK, NH 03874---0 28405000263COLE, CAMERON M 201 SANTA CLARA DRIVE #10NAPLES, FL 34104---0 46573004827COLLIER CNTY C/O REAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 3335 TAMIAMI TR E, STE 101 NAPLES, FL 34112---0 00400248006COLLIER CNTY C/O REAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 3335 TAMIAMI TR E, STE 101 NAPLES, FL 34112---0 00400244505COLLIER CNTY C/O REAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 3335 TAMIAMI TR E, STE 101 NAPLES, FL 34112---0 00400120001COLLIER CNTY C/O REAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 3335 TAMIAMI TR E, STE 101 NAPLES, FL 34112---0 00400246309COLLIER CNTY C/O REAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 3335 TAMIAMI TR E, STE 101 NAPLES, FL 34112---0 00400246406COLT, LYNDA R1240 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD # 204NAPLES, FL 34104---5804 31156005847COLTON, AUTUMN JOY 707 DELAWARE TRLMERCER, PA 16137---0 31156002727CONCANNON, JOHN F & JEAN M 18013 66TH CTTINLEY PARK, IL 60477---4104 28273750567CONNELL, MICHAEL 443 QUINCY SHORE DR APT 1N QUINCY, MA 02171---0 31156000868CONNELLY, FREDERICK E 7360 PROVINCE WAY #4301NAPLES, FL 34104---6061 28405000425CONNORS, PAUL J CELINE COOLEY-CONNORS 4185 REGENTS PARK HAMBURG, NY 14075---1361 28405000302CONSTANTINE JR, WARREN J 14 SPRING MILL LNCOLLEGEVILLE, PA 19426---4400 46573003860CONSTANTINE JR, WARREN J 14 SPRING MILL LNCOLLEGEVILLE, PA 19426---4400 46573002641COOPER, FRANK & MARIA E 4158 LORRAINE AVENAPLES, FL 34104---4737 46573001024COOPER, FRANK W & MARIA E 4158 LORRAINE AVENAPLES, FL 34104---4737 46573004584COOPER, FRANK W & MARIA E 4158 LORRAINE AVENAPLES, FL 34104---4737 46573001862COOPER, FRANK W & MARIA E 4158 LORRAINE AVENAPLES, FL 34104---4737 46573001943COOPER, FRANK W & MARIA E 4158 LORRAINE AVENAPLES, FL 34104---4737 31156003522CORAIZIN, KAYLA MAURICIO ESCOBAR 1280 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #204 NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156007447CORIO, MATTHEW BRYAN 150 SANTA CLARA DRIVE #5NAPLES, FL 34104---0 46573002007CORNELL, LILLY 1025 RICHMOND ROAD #2401OTTAWA K2B 8G8 CANADA 31156007544COSETTA, ROBERT J & LINDA S 230 KAUFMAN RDSOMERSET, MA 02726---2650 31156004123COSTAS, RICARDO 15275 COLLIER BLVD 201/269NAPLES, FL 34119---0 46573001781COUNTRY HAVEN COMMONS ASSOC % R & P MANAGEMENT 2500 AIRPORT RD S STE 310 NAPLES, FL 34112---4803 28480162003COUNTRYSIDE MASTER ASSOC INC 600 COUNTRYSIDE DRNAPLES, FL 34104---6711 28536700209COVELL, STEPHEN MICHAEL RENEE MARIE COVELL 1349 GOVENORS RUN COURT OFALLON, MO 63366---0 31156001061CRAMPTON, DAVID C & SUZANNE M 7251 ORLIN CT NEROCKFORD, MI 49341---8489 28273750428CRISTO-GUERRERO, MINERVA 3687 RECREATION LANENAPLES, FL 34116---7335 31156004709CROSBY, SERYOZHA D 3373 BALTIC DRIVENAPLES, FL 34119---0 31156006600CROWN, NANCY E ROBERT=& TERRY L CROWN NANCY M CROWN 9925 BOCA CIR NAPLES, FL 34109---7315 24754204387CRUZ, GEORGE GABRIEL YUNISLEIDY CRUZ 1260 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD UNIT 206 NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156006684CUDMORE, CHRISTOPHER MIRANDA CUDMORE 13 EAGLESTONE LANE BARRIE I4N 0H8 CANADA 31156001304POList_500_PL202000005649.A.2.d Packet Pg. 714 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 7CUELLO, OSLEIDY FERNANDEZ 5221 30TH AVE SWNAPLES, FL 34116---8003 46573002285CURTIS & CINDA WILSON TRUST 161 PLANTATION CIRCLENAPLES, FL 34104---6443 67965016907CYPRESSTONE LLC % CATHY TIRRI 4034 EAGLES NEST DR VALRICO, FL 33596---0 46573001008D'ACHILLE, JOHN M & CECILIA V 6338 C DURHAM DRLAKE WORTH, FL 33467---8718 46573002609DACK HOLDINGS LLC 562 BLUEBERRY PLACEFRANKLIN LAKES, NJ 07417---0 31156003865DALAKIS, MICHAEL CHRISTA DALAKIS 1831 ELGIN DR VIENNA, VA 22182---0 31156001100DALESSANDRO SR, JOHN M TONI ANN DALESSANDRO 109 LAREDO AVENUE STATEN ISLAND, NY 10312---0 31156005960D'AUTILIO, DANA A 52 WHITE MOUNTAIN WAYBRIDGTON, ME 04009---0 31156002109DAVID HEFFEL TRUST ANN HEFFEL TRUST 70 HEMLOCK LANE HALIFAX, MA 02338---0 28267500587DAVID J LAPORTE LIV TRUST KAREN E LAPORTE LIV TRUST 269 HOPE RD CRANSTON, RI 02921---0 31156001582DE BRUUN, SONIA PARADA 150 SANTA CLARA DR # 150-6NAPLES, FL 34104---7485 46573002023DE CARVALHO, SIOMARA 150 SANTA CLARA DR #9NAPLES, FL 34104---0 46573003200DECARVALHO, SIOMARA 150 SANTA CLARA DR APT 9NAPLES, FL 34104---5416 46573002146DECARVALHO, SIOMARA 150 SANTA CLARA DR APT 9NAPLES, FL 34104---5416 46573002081DECK, MARY JANE 7340 SAINT IVES WAY APT 3107NAPLES, FL 34104---6005 28273750143DEGRAND, SCOTT DAVID MARTIN 1376 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #8 NAPLES, FL 34104---6470 24754200967DEIN TR, ROBERT & DORIS ROBERT P DEIN LIVING TRUST UTD 09/14/00 15 WILLOW BRIDGE WAY UNIT D BLOOMINGDALE, IL 60108---2833 28380720008DEINYS, SHEYLA RODRIGUEZ 1280 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #102NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156007243DEJORDY, KAREN MICHAEL DEJORDY 1696 RIDGE TOP WAY CLEARWATER, FL 33765---1830 31156006545DEL CAMPO TR, DENNIS PAUL 52140 GRIGGS RDWELLINGTON, OH 44090---9204 31156006024DELBELLO, DONALD W 24 HUNT RDSOMERSET, NJ 08873---1742 28273750062DELETRAZ, ANDRES ALBERTO SARMIENTO 1664 PISO 6 CSAN MIGUEL 1663 ARGENTINA 31156003344DEQUINZIO, ALBERT T & TERESA M 7360 PROVINCE WAY APT 4202NAPLES, FL 34104---6059 28405000247DERIY, BORIS & LUDMILA ALEXANDER B DERIY 5 BURR OAKS COURT BOLLINGBROOK, IL 60440---1285 31156002206DERIY, BORIS N & LUDMILA V ALEXANDER B DERIY 5 BURR OAKS COURT BOLLINGBROOK, IL 60440---1285 31156000745DESIR, MAX & MARIE M 164 PLANTATION CIRNAPLES, FL 34104---6400 67965017553DESMARAIS, PAUL F 1185 WILDWOOD LAKES #7 208NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156002329DILLON, CHRISTOPHER 100 SANTA CLARA DR #15NAPLES, FL 34104---0 46573000287DINATALE, BEVERLY 259 LASALLE DRWEBSTER, NY 14580---3919 31156006260DINIRO, JOHN R KATHY A DINIRO 7360 PROVINCE WAY APT 4101 NAPLES, FL 34104---6058 28405000027DODD, PETER J & ANGELA MARIE 4359 RTE 516MATAWAN, NJ 07747---0 24754203304DOMETROVICH, JOHN MARK9716 VAN STRATTAN CTHUNTERSVILLE, NC 28078---5918 31156005821DONAGHEY, JOHN & SHANNON S 11890 N 103RD PLSCOTTSDALE, AZ 85260---0 31156007489DONOVAN, CATHERINE A 6423 83RD PLMIDDLE VILLAGE, NY 11379---2421 28405000506DONZELLI, ROSE ANNE 7360 SAINT IVES WAY #2106NAPLES, FL 34104---0 28267500121DORNER, MARTIN & HELEN SVOBODA 222 MARJAN CROTTAWA K2J 0N2 CANADA 31156003328DOUGLAS A HALL LIV TRUST 2679 GREEN MEADOWS DRTRAVERSE CITY, MI 49685---8674 28380240009DP1 PROPERTIES LLC 308 SPIDER LILY LANENAPLES, FL 34119---0 31156004482DP1 PROPERTIES LLC 308 SPIDER LILY LANENAPLES, FL 34119---0 31156004288DUANE A CHILGREN REV TRUST JOY A CHILGREN REV TRUST 714 TORCHWOOD DRIVE NEW BRIGHTON, MN 55112---0 31156000567DUGGAN, JAMES P & MADONNA M 7360 PROVINCE WAY #4105NAPLES, FL 34104---0 28405000108DWORNIK, ADINA J & KENNETH 128 WILSON RDCLINTON, PA 15026---1512 46573003268EAKIN, RICHARD P & NELLA 1275 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD # 206NAPLES, FL 34104---5818 31156000282ECKARDT, DANIEL LUISA CASSIA ESTRADA DEL PAI VANONE OASIS TWR8 ANDAR 32 AP COLOGNE MACAO SAR CHINA 31156004602EDDY JR, THOMAS J ABIGAIL ROSE EDDY 1220 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD # 303 NAPLES, FL 34104---5806 31156005148EL SHINNAWY, IHAB AMY ESTEP 72 MOONBEAM COURT HAMILTON L9C 0A8 CANADA 24754201788ELENI EXARHOS REV TRUST 9 DARTMOUTH STREETPEABODY, MA 01960---1301 31156006464ELFRA LLC 143 MILL RDNORTH ANDOVER, MA 01845---5528 31156001443ELLIS-HICKS, SANDRA CARLETON HICKS JR 7360 SAINT IVES WAY APT 2201 NAPLES, FL 34104---6098 28267500228ENGELS JR, PETER J & RENEE M 4079 REFORESTATION RDSUAMICO, WI 54313---8505 28267500286ERICKSON, CATHERINE 171 PLANTATION CIRNAPLES, FL 34104---6443 67965017155ERTEL, GREGORY V & CYNTHIA J 88 CAMBRIDGE DRIVE SOUTHWINDSOR, CT 06074---0 46573001066ESMOND, ROBERT E 1381 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #7NAPLES, FL 34104---6473 24754203980ESPANA, NORBERTO & MARIA E 34 NORTHGATE BLVDBRAMPTON L6S 4A6 CANADA 31156003221ESTER BRADA REV TRUST HABROS 3MAZKERETBATYA ISRAEL46573004649EVA VIEAU REV TRUST8283 VALIANT DRNAPLES, FL 34104---046573001529FAKHRI, HENRY & LIZETH11359 NW 53RD LANEDORAL, FL 33178---031156003548FAKHRI, HENRY J & LIZETH11359 NW 53RD LNDORAL, FL 33178---352131156002303POList_500_PL202000005649.A.2.d Packet Pg. 715 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 8FALENCIK, PIOTR & DOROTA 1280 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #104NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156007285FARLEY, PAUL & FRANCESCA 503 DOUBLETREE LANENEW MARKET L3X 2L2 CANADA 31156005106FARO INTERNATIONAL GROUP LLC 920 HONEYBEE DRIVENAPLES, FL 34120---0 31156006147FEDERAL HOME LOAN MTG CORP 800 JONES BRANCH DRMCLEAN, VA 22102---0 46573000847FEDIANOVA, VERONIKA SIXTO CASAS 1205 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD # 206 NAPLES, FL 34104---5815 31156001485FEDIANOVA, VLADISLAVA V 1250 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #106NAPLES, FL 34104---5803 31156006121FEELEY, TIMOTHY P ELIZABETH A FEELEY 5S564 KIRK PL NAPERVILLE, IL 60563---1956 31156006383FEENEY, OWEN 11398 STRATHAM LOOPESTERO, FL 33928---3245 46573003129FEINDEL, CHRISTOPHER MARY ANN LUKACHKO 99 COLLEGE VIEW AVE TORONTO M5P 1K2 CANADA 28405000564FELDMAN, ALEXANDRA 2652 CROPSEY AVE #11FBROOKLYN, NY 11214---0 24754200886FELIPE, LEIDA GOVIN 108 SANTA CLARA DRIVE #8NAPLES, FL 34104---0 46573000465FENWICK, PHILLIP 457 TWO ROD RDMARILLA, NY 14102---9748 31156005342FENWICK, PHILLIP 457 TWO ROD RDMARILLA, NY 14102---9748 31156004929FERGUSON JR, ROBERT C & MAURA 45 DANELLA WAYHOWELL, NJ 07731---8913 31156000787FERRARI, PAOLO 28 VALLEYWOOD RDCOS COB, CT 06807---2329 46573003446FERRARI, PAOLO 4411 WILDER RDNAPLES, FL 34105---2528 46573002243FERRARI, PAOLO 4411 WILDER RDNAPLES, FL 34105---2528 46573002324FERRARO III, ALBERT M 1180 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #108NAPLES, FL 34113---0 31156003768FEUCHT, GREGOR 1195 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD # 108NAPLES, FL 34104---5814 31156001760FILIPOV, ALEKSEY 40 CLANCY DRIVETORONTO M2J 2V8 CANADA 31156007023FISHELL, CHLOE GREGORY FISHELL 1270 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #303 NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156007146FRANCO, CARLOS 9527 ROUNDSTONE CIRFORT MYERS, FL 33967---5142 24754200925FRANKOSKI, ANTHONY & LARAINE 67 EDGEWOOD AVENUEWEST ORANGE, NJ 07052---0 31156004903FRAUENGLASS, LLOYD LUCY N NEDIALKOVA-FRAUENGLASS 1500 BEDFORD ST #201 STAMFORD, CT 06905---0 31156005986FREIBERG, ROBERT ERIKA VILLAFAN 169 PLANTATION CIR NAPLES, FL 34104---0 67965017100FUNG, ALFRED & IRENE 6840 BEACH RESORT DR APT 2NAPLES, FL 34114---1526 31156005562FUNK, ANDREW J & DEANNA 81 LINMOUTH RDMALVERNE, NY 11565---2116 31156004864FUSCO, LIBERO LINA FUSCO 119 MURRAY DR OCEANSIDE, NY 11572---0 31156002280GABER, NADIA 1172 S DIXIE HWY # 453CORAL GABLES, FL 33146---2918 46573000481GABER, NADIA 1172 SOUTH DIXIE HWY, #453CORAL GABLES, FL 33146---0 46573002887GABINOS INVESTMENT LLC 833 COLDSTREAM CTNAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156004644GAIL M GAFFEY REV LIV TRUST 7360 PROVINCE WAY #107NAPLES, FL 34104---6059 28405000140GARCIA, ISELL P 100 SANTA CLARA DRIVE #2NAPLES, FL 34104---046573000766GARCIA, JEISSON ALBERTO A 1280 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #107NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156007340GARCIA, JOSE M & MARTHA 1344 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #6NAPLES, FL 34104---6464 24754201568GARCIA, MIGUEL A TELLEZ HANCER MARTIN 1250 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #304 NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156006367GARDEAZABAL, MELINA FIORELLA APOLONIA ODARBA FELIPE JAVIER GARDEAZABAL 1280 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD UNIT 206 NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156004181GARIZURIETA, DAFNE 185 SANTA CLARA DR #4NAPLES, FL 34104---5433 46573003585GARNET & EARTH INC 2000 N BAYSHORE DRIVE #328MIAMI, FL 33137---0 46573001480GARRISON, MOSES & LINDA 727 AIRPORT RDPALMYRA, PA 17078---9785 31156004628GAWLINSKI, FRANK A 116 SANTA CLARA DRIVE #2NAPLES, FL 34104---0 46573000669GC IT SLTN 401 (K) PLAN TRUST 42476 UNICORN DRIVESOUTH RIDING, VA 20152---0 31156003661GEACH, ROBERT E & ANNA M 167 PLANTATION CIRNAPLES, FL 34104---6443 67965017058GEARY, EILEEN DIERDRE STEVENSON 120 WEST SADDLE RIVER ROAD SADDLE RIVER, NJ 07458---0 28380320000GENNARINI, UBALDO & TERESA 26 BLOCK TERFARMINGDALE, NY 11735---6012 31156004000GENTILE, VINCENT A & MARY T 7360 PROVINCE WAY APT 4102NAPLES, FL 34104---6058 28405000043GESHKEWICH, JOHN 128 DUPEE PLACEWILMETTE, IL 60091---0 28267500189GILL, MARTHA 1280 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #208NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156007528GILLIS, MARK 321 EMERALD DRIVEARNOLDS PARK, IA 51331---0 31156006163GIORDANO, MICHAEL J 1929 TANNERS COVEHEBRON, KY 41048---0 28273750169GOMEZ, OLGA I 4101 GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY #8NAPLES, FL 34116---0 46573002308GONIS, NICHOLAS G 1190 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVDNAPLES, FL 34104---5808 31156004084GONNELLA, RUDOLPH J & ELLEN A 609 103RD AVE NNAPLES, FL 34108---0 31156000622GONZALEZ, AURORA TERRAZA 201 SANTA CLARA DR # 2NAPLES, FL 34104---0 46573004665GONZALEZ, OLISDAY FERRER 1270 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #104NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156006888GOOD WAVE INVESTMENTS INC 1160 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #101NAPLES, FL 34104---031156002824GOODFELLOW, ALISON P363 COURTLAND AVENUEDORVAL H9S 2R8 CANADA 31156001647GOODING, JOHN M & LUCIA M4361 LORRAINE AVENAPLES, FL 34104---474031156007463POList_500_PL202000005649.A.2.d Packet Pg. 716 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9GORDINSKAYA, TAMARA 1636 SPOONBILL LN #ANAPLES, FL 34105---0 31156006286GORDON, TOM & CINDY 26 PINEHURST DRBOURNE, MA 02532---0 28267500105GORMAN, SUZANNE W 3971 JASMINE LAKE CIRNAPLES, FL 34119---7956 24754203207GOSELIN, CHRISTY L 22019 ROSEMARY RDFRANKFORT, IL 60423---3147 31156004848GRANADA LAKES LLC 9001 HIGHLAND WOODS BLVD #7BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135---0 46573000041GRANDPIERRE, OLIVER KAPELLENSTR 9HUENSTETTEN 65510 GERMANY 31156002785GREGORY, JACKIE L 112 ROGERS STHARTSVILLE, TN 37074---0 46573000122GRIETA INVESTMENT CORP 17501 BISCAYNE BLVDAVENTURA, FL 33160---0 31156002484GRINDLAY, MAUREEN R 905 FAIRHAVEN COURTNAPLES, FL 34104---0 28380280001GROTE, GEORGE W & BARBARA L 349 HENLEY DRNAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156005407GUEVARA, THOMAS MATEO JESSICA D BOUCHARD GUEVARA 1210 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #206 NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156004686GUIHO, MARC 225 ALVIN RD #304OTTAWA K1K 4H6 CANADA 31156003645GUNGOR, HALIL IBRAHIM 1210 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #304NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156004767GUTIERREZ, LUIS VERONICA GUTIERREZ 1352 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #2 NAPLES, FL 34104---0 24754201160GUTIERREZ, MARIA L 1250 WILDWOOD LAKESNAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156006040H J LICHY & N B LICHY FM TRUST 10650 BEARD AVE S #204BLOOMINGTON, MN 55431---0 28405000205HAIGHT, KRISTIN LEWIS 3 CAMBRIDGE COURTKENNEBUNK, ME 04043---0 28273750020HAPKE, KENNETH W & MARGIE E 816 W ELKCAM CIR # 806MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145---2244 46573003666HARRIS, ALAN S & ROSEMARY L 163 PLANTATION CIRNAPLES, FL 34104---0 67965016952HARVEY, BRENDA JOYCE 7786 SCARLET CTNAPLES, FL 34104---0 67965017757HAYES, SHIRLEY A 20109 BALLYLEE CTESTERO, FL 33928---0 31156001508HAZELL, KAREN E 1265 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #3 204NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156000648HEALEY, CHARLES F & LORRAINE K 22 BREK DRIVEMERRIMAK, NH 03054---0 28273750305HEIDTMAN, HAL H CARRIE ZANVILLE 7260 SLOOP CT MAUMEE, OH 43537---0 31156001223HELLU, JAMIL JORGE 7360 SAINT IVES WAY APT 2310NAPLES, FL 34104---6099 28267500600HEMPHILL, LIA 4380 27TH CT SW PAR ONE #1, BLDG 1-301 NAPLES, FL 34116---0 46573001464HENDRICKS, BRIAN 721 14TH ST NENAPLES, FL 34120---9405 24754201843HENSRUD, MICHAEL 2170 DE LA PLANTATIONST LAZARE J7T 2H6 CANADA 46573001749HENSRUD, MIKE 2170 DE LA PLANTATION STST LAZARE J7T 3E4 CANADA 46573004542HERINA TR, PETER & ANGELA P & A HERINA LIVING TRUST 7340 PROVINCE WAY # 3306 NAPLES, FL 34104---0 28381000002HERRERA, JAVIER 169 SANTA CLARA DR #6NAPLES, FL 34104---5437 46573002984HERZEL YOSI REV TRUST SADE IZHAKKIRYAT MALAKHL 83022 ISRAEL 46573000164HOFFMAN, ROBERT T & SUSAN J 609 FIELDWOODS DRCONWAY, SC 29526---0 31156005449HOGAN, THOMAS A 10 GREEN LINKS TURNAUBURN, NY 13021---9636 46573003624HOLANDA LLC 3377 HIBISCUS AVENAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156001702HORD, ANN M 696 BROOKPARK RDMARION, OH 43302---5881 28273750444HORNER TR, GEORGE L & JUDITH M G L HORNER & J M HORNER TRUST UTD 12/31/07 2831 CHIEF WILLIAM DR # 18 FAIRBANKS, AK 99709---4870 28380840001HSU, HSIAO-LAN T 2303 NICASIO PLCEDAR PARK, TX 78641---0 31156004547HUDSON CAPITAL FUND LLC 26-26 14TH ST 1ST FLOOR ASTORIA, NY 11102---0 31156004783HUDSON CAPITAL FUND LLC 26-26 14TH ST 1ST FLOOR ASTORIA, NY 11102---0 31156004806HUNNISETT, GEOFFREY 213 MUTUAL STREETTORONTO M5B 2B4 CANADA 31156002882HUSSIN, THOMAS & JULIE 7360 SAINT IVES WAY APT 2103NAPLES, FL 34104---6087 28267500066I F & C A JENNINGS RV LV TRUST 7360 PROVINCE WAY #4208NAPLES, FL 34104---0 28405000360IACOVELLI, DAVID & EILEEN 9 TAFT CIRCLEHOPEDALE, MA 01747---0 28273750389IBIS INVESTMENTS LLC 6151 EVERETT STNAPLES, FL 34112---0 28273750240IGLESIAS, MAYLIN LOPEZ DAYRON HERNANDEZ 1160 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #203 NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156003027IRGAVE INC 2000 N BAYSHORE DRIVE SUITE 328MIAMI, FL 33137---0 46573002829ISUFAJ, ARMELA 9471 JANE STREET UNIT 108VAUGHAN L6A 4J2 CANADA 31156005740IVANOV, IVAN & DIANA 11 BUGLE HILL ROADTORONTO M1T 1C5 CANADA 31156007421IVANOV, IVAN I & DIANE 11 BUGLE HILL ROADSCARBOROUGH MIT 1C5 CANADA 31156004563IZOWER, LUIS B GINA MORRIS-IZOWER 342 N FARVIEW AVE PARAMUS, NJ 07652---4631 31156000907J F & M M LOPES LIVING TRUST 45 SYCAMORE STREETSWANSEN, MA 02777---0 28267500260J M & C B COLLINS IRREV TRUST PO BOX 1812NORTH CONWAY, NH 03860---0 28405000124JAGGE, FINN CHRISTIAN TRINE-LISE JAGGE SUNDVEIEN 18 OSLO 0198 NORWAY 31156001540JAMES ROBERT BRYAN LLC 3530 CRYSTAL COURTMIAMI, FL 33133---0 31156004987JIMENEZ ET AL, SUSANA MORA 190 SANTA CLARA DR #3NAPLES, FL 34104---0 46573003886JOHN J LALLY REV LIV TRUST 1250 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #104NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156006082JOHNSON, SHERRY ANN 3 WEYBRIDGE LANEHOPKINTON, MA 01748---0 31156004026POList_500_PL202000005649.A.2.d Packet Pg. 717 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 10JOHNSTON, ALAN & NADKA 1 GARLEFFIN COTTAGE BALLANTRAE GIRVAN KA26 0PA SCOTLAND 31156002002JORZ, RICHARD M KATHLEEN HARTMAN 6709 GRANDVIEW DRIVE INDEPENDENCE, OH 44131---0 31156005245JOYCE, GERALDINE M 9 H BEAL'S COVE RDHINGHAM, MA 02043---2363 28267500464JUSKIEWICZ, KRISTINE 7340 PROVINCE WAY #3104NAPLES, FL 34104---0 28380160008K & R HOMETECH LLC 131 25TH STREET SWNAPLES, FL 34117---0 46573003022K&R HOMETECH LLC 132 SANTA CLARA DR #5NAPLES, FL 34104---0 46573001367KACHMAR, SANDRA 5 BUCKINGHAM LNBUFFALO GROVE, IL 60089---0 31156004961KALVEL, PETER & IRENA 2601 S ROOSEVELT BLVD #104CKEY WEST, FL 33040---0 31156003726KAREN, BONNIE R CARLOS A LEANIZ 1180 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #104 NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156003687KARPOVICH, ANDREI 1160 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #9-306NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156003205KASIAN, JOHN A & SUSAN G 7340 PROVINCE WAY #3105NAPLES, FL 34104---0 28380200007KAVALLIERATOS, NICOLAOS 50 SUNNYSIDE AVETARRYTOWN, NY 10591---3813 46573000928KAVALLIERATOS, NICOLAOS HARALAMBOS TSIOUTAS 1633 BROADWAY FL 3RF NEW YORK, NY 10019---6708 31156002507KELLY, JAMES E & JESSICA S 6962 EMMA COURTWARRENTON, DC 20187---0 28405000548KENT, GREG & BONNIE 46 PERRIN AVENEPEAN K2J 2X5 CANADA 31156004369KERSTENS, BRANDON M 961 NORTH DOHENY DRIVE UNIT 1/4WEST HOLLYWOOD, CA 90069---0 31156001566KESSLER, JOHN & BEATA 14605 W WILKENS PLPLAINFIELD, IL 60544---7663 31156005805KNIGHT, CRAIG 1377 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #8NAPLES, FL 34104---6472 24754203045KNUDSEN, TIMOTHY & SUSAN 1350 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVDNAPLES, FL 34104---6450 24754201089KOLEV, STANISLAV E TATYANA I VOUCHEVA 13496 CAMBRIDGE LN NAPLES, FL 34109---3907 31156003483KOMODI, ZOLTAN PO BOX 9711NAPLES, FL 34101---0 46573000562KOPPER, HERMANN & MARIA E 5705 SEA GRASS LANENAPLES, FL 34116---0 46573001309KOSTADINOV, PETER & MONICA 1230 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #305NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156005588KOSTAN, NICHOLAS & KATHLEEN 83 GRANT RDLYNN, MA 01904---1212 28405000182KRAMER, DANIEL A & TAMMY S 5039 MALLET HILL DRIVECINCINNATI, OH 45244---0 28267500367KRANSEL, ANGELA M CINDY L PICKETT 153 SANTA CLARA DR #6 NAPLES, FL 34104---0 46573002340KRIST, ERIC T 1265 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD UNIT #103NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156000460KRIZEK, IVO 6195 RESERVE CIR #1303NAPLES, FL 34119---0 31156007382KRIZEK, IVO 6195 RESERVE CIR #1303NAPLES, FL 34119---0 31156000020KRIZEK, IVO 6195 RESERVE CIR #1303NAPLES, FL 34119---0 31156004741KRYEKURTI, KUJTIM 309 W 30TH ST APT 7CNEW YORK, NY 10001---0 31156007081KRZEMINSKI JR, EDWARD P 4240 BURTON ROADNAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156004165KVC CLEANING SERVICES INC 100 SANTA CLARA DR # 8NAPLES, FL 34104---0 46573000148KYTHREOTIS, LEO & DIANNE C 3906 TAMIAMI TRL E STE 1NAPLES, FL 34112---6251 46573002463LAKE, SUZANNE 1195 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #207NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156001906LAKEVIEW CONDO LLC % WILLIAM KLOHN 1630 DOLPHIN RD NAPLES, FL 34102---0 31156001126LANDCOLE & MYB LLC 1810 BALD EAGLE DR #ANAPLES, FL 34105---0 46573002722LANDEROZ, GUS & MARTHA 676 SANDPIPER DRIVENEW LENOX, IL 60451---0 28380080007LANDRIGAN, MICHAEL 18 LENORE PLSMITHTOWN, NY 11788---2706 46573002942LANGER, PETER F & GEORGEA M 2720 CALLOWAY CTCANTON, MI 48188---0 28381160007LANSING, JOHN ANTHONY & CINDY 1207 MARIE STGREENDALE, IN 47025---1237 28267500147LARSON TR, EDWARD I & SHARON S EDWARD & SHARON LARSON TRUST 7340 PROVINCE WAY APT 3202 NAPLES, FL 34104---6052 28380480005LAUKAITIS, PAUL M & AMY M 233 ORCHARD PARK BLVDROCHESTER, NY 14609---0 28380960004LAWRENCE A DELK DEC OF TRUST 11812 HARRISON RDHUNTLEY, IL 60142---0 28273750127LAWRENCE, STEVEN R 1400 CREST WAYYORK, PA 17403---9102 24754200909LAZARO, MISAEL J GONZALEZ 1220 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #14-203NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156005025LEGACY NAPLES LLC 25101 CHAGRIN BLVD STE 300BEACHWOOD, OH 44122---0 00399720004LEGREGNI, LORRAINE 7360 PROVINCE WAY #4103NAPLES, FL 34104---6058 28405000069LESSARD, JACQUES & BRENDA 123 DANIEL CRESCENTPORCUPINE P0N 1K0 CANADA 31156003043LEWIS, MORRIS L 1230 WASHINGTON DRANNAPOLIS, MD 21403---4700 28267500383LICHY, ROBERT C & DIANE 7340 PROVINCE WAY APT 3101NAPLES, FL 34104---6051 28380040005LINEMAN, ALOYSIUS L & SHARON L 7340 SAINT IVES WAY #3203NAPLES, FL 34104---0 28273750266LITTLER, PETER 7340 ST IVES WAY #3307NAPLES, FL 34104---0 28273750541LJUBENOVIC, NADEZHDA STEFANOVA 6215 WILSHIRE PINES CIR #1608NAPLES, FL 34109---031156004343LOCK, KERRY D & RETA A56622 COPPERFIELD DRSHELBY TOWNSHIP, MI 48316---481131156001663LODOABA, VLAD C800 MEADOWLAND DRIVE #ONAPLES, FL 34108---031156006406LONGERNECKER, FREDERICKMAUREEN LONGERNECKER4629 NICOLE LNBETHLEHEM, PA 18017---8755 31156003700LOPEZ, ANTONIO O & MARIA C15325 SW 74 CTPALMETTO BAY, FL 33157---0 31156001841POList_500_PL202000005649.A.2.d Packet Pg. 718 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 11LOPEZ, RAFAELA BARBARA MIGUEL A PEREZ 194 SANTA CLARA DRIVE #15 NAPLES, FL 34104---0 46573004607LORENZO, ALBERTO J ANA M LORENZO 13621 NW 9TH TER MIAMI, FL 33182---0 31156000923LORENZO, ALBERTO J & ANA M 13621 NW 9TH TERRACEMIAMI, FL 33182---0 31156001207LOSHKAREVA, EKATERINA 1235 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #303NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156001142LOTHIAN, SHELLEY L 110 WOODLAWN RD E UNIT 2GUELPH N1E 1B7 CANADA 31156004408LOUGHNEY, ILENE E DAWN LOUGHNEY RAUCCIO 7340 SAINT IVES WAY #3104 NAPLES, FL 34104---6005 28273750088LOUISE KING TRUST 421 FOREST STREETDUNSTABLE, MA 01827---2500 31156001728LUCIR LLC 9901 NW 80TH AVE #3HMIAMI, FL 33016---0 31156005782MACDONALD ET AL, DIANE 14 HAMILTON ROAD PO BOX 318 PORT ROBINSON L0S 1K0 CANADA 31156002688MACHADO, VANESSA RUSSI JESUS MACHADO 426 SW 26TH RD MIAMI, FL 33129---2227 46573000708MADDEN IRREV TRUST 36 GLEN STMANSFIELD, MA 02048---0 28267500202MADDOX, JAMES CURTIS 2103 TURTLE CREEK DR #12RICHMOND, VA 23233---0 28273750185MADSEN LIVING TRUST 4365 COYOTE LAKES CIRCLELAKE INTHE HILLS, IL 60156---0 28405000441MAGDALENA E SCHULER REV TRUST 1113 CRYSTAL CREEK PKWYWENTZVILLE, MO 63385---0 31156002400MAGUIRE, DESMOND A 1270 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #107NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156006943MAINOLFI, FRANK & SUSAN 14864 EDGEWATER CIRNAPLES, FL 34114---0 24754204727MAIORI LLC 3377 HIBISCUS AVENAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156003425MAIORI LLC 3377 HIBISCUS AVENUENAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156007308MALCOLM, BARRY W 209-1177 YONGE STREETTORONTO M4T 2Y4 CANADA 28405000467MARCUS, ZIV 519 HIGHCLIFFE DRIVETHORNHILL L4J 8L3 CANADA 31156006626MARIANI, ANGELA G 1760 PLYMOUTH COURT UNIT DWHETON, IL 60189---0 46573000889MARQUARDT, CARL F & ANN MARIE 108 PINE STPORT JEFF STA, NY 11776---3161 31156003629MARTELLI, DEBRA A 1178 LAKE AVE #2CLARK, NJ 07066---0 28273750583MARTIN, NAYENI RAYDEL OJEDA FIGUEROA 1220 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #306 NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156005203MARVIN, SARAH 1150 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #107NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156002549MASTERSON, EDWARD H & JAIA A 16 PIKE RDPLYMOUTH, MA 02360---5949 31156002248MASTROCOLA TR, DONALD & NORMA MASTROCOLA REALTY TRUST UTD 10/12/00 7340 PROVINCE WAY APT 3103 NAPLES, FL 34104---6051 28380120006MATOZZO, THEODORE & BARBARA 63 BUCKLEY RDPATCHOGUE, NY 11772---1556 31156003962MAUREEN A PIERZCHALA REV TRUST 7380 PROVINCE WAY #5308NAPLES, FL 34104---0 28380680009MAZNEV, DIMITAR 1185 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #103NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156002060MAZNEV, DIMITAR 1230 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #105NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156005300MAZZUCCO, WILLIAM & ELIZABETH 8 CANTERBURY DRFORKED RIVER, NJ 08731---0 28380760000MC MINN, SUSAN B 7360 ST IVES WAY #2102NAPLES, FL 34104---0 28267500040MCBRIDE, ANDREW MASON 1185 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD # 102NAPLES, FL 34104---5813 31156002044MCDERMOTT, MICHAEL JAMES EILEEN CONNOLLY-MCDERMOTT 159 PLANTATION CIR NAPLES, FL 34104---0 67965016855MCETTRICK, MARY ELIZABETH G 31 HERSH ROADFAIRFIELD, CT 06824---0 28405000328MCGREGOR, JOHANNE 7340 SAINT IVES WAYNAPLES, FL 34104---0 28273750282MCLEAD, DIANE J 1195 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #201NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156001786MCMICHAEL, LIZ A 1270 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD # 204NAPLES, FL 34104---5801 31156007049MCNEELEY, PATRICK J & EVE C 32642 WALKER RDAVON LAKE, OH 44012---0 31156006244MEDEIROS, CHARLES 1210 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #101NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156004424MEDINA, FRANK 12671 LAKEBROOK DRORLANDO, FL 32828---0 31156006503MELLOR JR, JOHN R & JUDY K 400 SANDY CREST CTSCHENECTADY, NY 12303---4716 31156006325MENDELSOHN, RALPH J & SUSAN E 1270 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #106NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156006927MENDIETA, JOSE A 7432 BRISTOL CIRCLENAPLES, FL 34120---0 46573001587MERINO, CHRISTIAN 161 SANTA CLARA DR #6NAPLES, FL 34104---0 46573002706MERINO, CHRISTIAN 161 SANTA CLARA DR #6NAPLES, FL 34104---0 46573004429MERINO, CHRISTIAN F 161 SANTA CLARA DR #6NAPLES, FL 34104---0 46573002683MERINO, CHRISTIAN F 161 SANTA CLARA DR #6NAPLES, FL 34104---0 46573004746MERINO, CHRISTIAN F JENNIFER N MERINO 161 SANTA CLARA DRIVE #6 NAPLES, FL 34104---0 46573002667MERTINE, NICOLE L KATHRYN A MERTINE 270 92ND ST #2F BROOKLYN, NY 11209---0 46573000368MESCHERSKAYA, GALINA 3115 BRIGHTON 4 ST, APT 4FBROOKLYN, NY 11235---0 31156000389MESKE, ROBERT L 1450 E POND DR APT 23OKEMOS, MI 48864---2373 31156004042MEYER, GLEN & ANGELA 474 SAMUEL HARPER COURTMT ALBERT L0G 1M0 CANADA 31156000842MIHAJLOVIKJ, ELIZABETA 1250 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #201NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156005601MIHAJLOVIKJ, ELIZABETH 1250 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #201NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156006189MILLER, MATTHEW ROGER 1180 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD # 201NAPLES, FL 34104---580931156003784MILONE, VIOLET APLACIDO A MILONE15 DORA AVEWALDWICK, NJ 07463---028267500341POList_500_PL202000005649.A.2.d Packet Pg. 719 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 12MINERVA GROUP LLC 190 SE 19TH AVEPOMPANO BEACH, FL 33060---7541 46573003828MINERVA GROUP LLC C/O JOHANNE MARCOUX PO BOX 166386 MIAMI, FL 33116---0 46573000685MINERVA GROUP LLC PO BOX 166386MIAMI, FL 33116---0 46573000203MINERVA GROUP LLC PO BOX 166386MIAMI, FL 33116---0 46573000902MINERVA GROUP LLC PO BOX 166386MIAMI, FL 33116---6386 46573003187MIRBEN LLC 1810 BALD EAGLE DRIVE UNIT ANAPLES, FL 34105---0 46573004283MIRBEN LLC 4400 N FEDERAL HWY #42BOCA RATON, FL 33431---0 46573002421MITCHELL, DOUGLAS PATRICK DOUGLAS MITCHELL KATHLEEN GLADYSZ MITCHELL 185 SANTA CLARA DRIVE #15 NAPLES, FL 34104---0 46573003802MONTANA, KIM 2821 BOSTON POST RDGUILFORD, CT 06437---0 31156007586MOORE, JAMES G 100 SANTA CLARA DRIVE UNIT #5NAPLES, FL 34104---0 46573000083MOOREHOUSE, HENRY W ELIZABETH C MOOREHOUSE 570 SHEEPSCOT RD NEWCASTLE, ME 04553---3642 31156001362MOORHOUSE III, HENRY W ELIZABETH C MOORHOUSE 570 SHEEPSCOT ROAD NEWCASTLE, ME 04553---0 31156003807MORAGA, ELIZABETH & OSCAR 1445 W FLAGLER STMIAMI, FL 33135---2208 24754203964MORALES, LUIS ARMANDO 1150 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD UNIT 101NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156002426MORGA, GREGORY 65 OAKDALE RDCENTERPORT, NY 11721---1530 31156005041MORRISON, IRIS 1373 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #5NAPLES, FL 34104---6427 24754203786MUNCH Y BACKEN LLC 1810 BALD EAGLE DR #ANAPLES, FL 34105---0 46573002201MUNCH Y BACKEN LLC 1810 BALD EAGLE DR #ANAPLES, FL 34105---0 46573000423MURLAP LLC 269 HOPE RDCRANSTON, RI 02921---2742 24754203605NAJDENI, FLORIAN & ILDA 107 TUSCANA CT #406NAPLES, FL 34119---0 31156003289NAPLES SKY REALTY LLC PO BOX 110101NAPLES, FL 34108---0 31156003182NAPOLITANO, MARY JEAN 26 ICE POND DRPORTLAND, ME 04103---0 28405000522NEAL, PETER 96 LEOMINSTER RDSHIRLEY, MA 01464---2005 46573004021NEEDLES, SCOTT STACY WITTHOFF 1000 N COLLIER BLVD STE 1 MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145---0 31156006765NEEDLES, SCOTT STACY WITTHOFF 1000 N COLLIER BLVD, STE 1 MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145---0 31156002523NESS ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC PO BOX 116386MIAMI, FL 33116---0 46573004144NESS ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC PO BOX 166386MIAMI, FL 33116---0 46573001503NESS ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC PO BOX 166386MIAMI, FL 33116---0 46573004089NESS ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC PO BOX 166386MIAMI, FL 33116---0 46573004500NESS ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC PO BOX 166386MIAMI, FL 33116---0 46573000067NESS ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC PO BOX 166386MIAMI, FL 33116---0 46573004940NESS ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC PO BOX 166386MIAMI, FL 33116---0 46573004102NESS ASSET MANAGEMENT LLCPO BOX 166386MIAMI, FL 33116---0 46573001707NESS ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC PO BOX 166386MIAMI, FL 33116---6386 46573003608NESS ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC PO BOX 166386MIAMI, FL 33116---6386 46573002489NESS ASSET MGMNT GROUP LLC RADIANT INVESTMENTS LLC PO BOX 166386 MIAMI, FL 33116---0 46573003682NESS ASSET MGMNT LLC PO BOX 166386MIAMI, FL 33116---6386 46573003747NESS ASSET MGMNT LLC PO BOX 166386MIAMI, FL 33116---6386 46573003404NESS DYNASTY LLC PO BOX 166386MIAMI, FL 33116---0 46573004380NESS DYNASTY LLC PO BOX 166386MIAMI, FL 33116---0 46573000326NESS DYNASTY LLC PO BOX 166386MIAMI, FL 33116---0 46573003307NESS DYNASTY LLC PO BOX 166386MIAMI, FL 33116---0 46573002227NESS DYNASTY LLC PO BOX 166386MIAMI, FL 33116---0 46573003789NESS DYNASTY LLC PO BOX 166386MIAMI, FL 33116---0 46573001040NESS DYNASTY LLC PO BOX 166386MIAMI, FL 33116---0 46573000724NESS DYNASTY LLC PO BOX 166386MIAMI, FL 33116---0 46573002447NESS HOLDINGS LLC PO BOX 166386MIAMI, FL 33116---0 46573003569NESS, TAMIR PO BOX 166386MIAMI, FL 33116---6386 46573001969NEVES, BARBARA A 7340 ST IVES WAY #3207NAPLES, FL 34104---0 28273750347NEW HOPE MINISTRIES INC 7675 DAVIS BLVDNAPLES, FL 34104---5312 00399760006NICHOL, FRANK J & THERESE E 708 KING HENRY LNSAINT CHARLES, IL 60174---7842 28273750525NICKERSON, KENNETH & YVONNE 4955 PEPPER CIR #205NAPLES, FL 34113---0 46573004681NICKERSON, YVONNE & KENNETH 4955 PEPPER CIR #205NAPLES, FL 34113---0 46573000520NODA, DAVID 321 20TH AVE NENAPLES, FL 34120---0 46573001927NODA, DAVID 321 20TH AVE NENAPLES, FL 34120---0 46573004461NONNI FLORIDA LLC4380 77TH AVE NWNAPLES, FL 34119---031156005944NONNI FLORIDA LLC4380 7TH AVENUE NWNAPLES, FL 34119---031156005863NPS PP LLC2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754204646POList_500_PL202000005649.A.2.d Packet Pg. 720 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 13OBREGON, EDUARDO OVIDIO 15223 SW 176TH LANEMIAMI, FL 33187---0 46573002405OCEAN BLUE 72 INC 1505 BIRDIE DRIVENAPLES, FL 34120---0 46573001341O'CONNELL, CHRISTOPHER DYMPNA SHERMAN 1308 REDWOOD WAY PACIFICA, CA 94044---0 31156005669OCONNOR, MICHAEL 830 SHORE RD #3ULONG BEACH, NY 11561---0 31156003001ODARBA, FIORELLA APOLONIA MELINA GARDEAZABAL ODARBA CALLE EL COMERCIO.EDIFICIO RLOCAL 2 PB HIDROROCA SANTA MOCARACAS 1040 VENEZUELA 31156007502OGDEN, SCOTT C 177 SANTA CLARA DR #12NAPLES, FL 34104---0 46573003420OPAL MY WORLD USA INC PO BOX 43486TUCSON, AZ 85733---0 46573000588OROFINO, MICHAEL A & PATRICIA 5324 STATE ROUTE 38AAUBURN, NY 13021---0 46573003640ORTEGA, PURISIMA G 1240 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #306NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156006008OSJA, ALBANA & BENART 166 PLANTATION CIRNAPLES, FL 34104---0 67965017508OSPINA, HECTOR 150 SANTA CLARA DR #150-4NAPLES, FL 34104---0 46573001985P4 LLC 3893 MANNIX DR STE 514NAPLES, FL 34114---5417 24754203883PAHINUI, MAKENA 153 PLANTATION CIRNAPLES, FL 34104---0 67965016703PARELLA, FRANCIS C & KATHLEEN 225 CHAPEL STHOLDEN, MA 01520---1812 28380640007PARET, RENATE ELISE BELMONTE HEIGHTS BLOCK E FLAT 7 ST IGNATIUS JUNCTION SLIEMA SLM2023 MALTA 31156000965PASSMORE, STEPHEN R & RACHEL C CHAUMIERE, CLAPHAM EXETERDEVON EX2 9UN UNITED KINGDOM 31156004385PATEL, MUKESHBHAI S SHILPA M PATEL 1235 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #107 NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156000949PATLAKH, VERA LEONORA STOLYER 212 CIBOA AVE NORTH PORT, FL 34287---0 31156006228PATLAKH, VERA LEONORA STOYLAR 1600 HAGYS FORD RD PENN VALLEY, PA 19072---1051 31156000981PATTERSON, LEE EDWARD MARIA VOYATZIS-PATTERSON 2109 BAKER DRIVE BURLINGTON L7L 0A8 CANADA 31156002840PAULOVICH, CESAR WALTER KARINA LORENA MIGUEZ 8999 SW 123RD CT #209 MIAMI, FL 33186---0 31156002947PCBC LLC % PAUL ARAN 400 SANDIRON CIR #431 PONTE VEDRA BCH, FL 32082---0 46573001147PCBC LLC % PAUL ARAN 400 SANDIRON CIR #431 PONTE VEDRA BEA, FL 32082---0 46573002586PCBC LLC %PAUL ARAN 400 SANDIRON CIR #431 PONTE VEDRA BEAC, FL 32082---0 46573004047PEDRAZA, RUTH A & CARLOS A 1160 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #105NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156002905PEKOS NAPLES LLC 833 COLDSTREAM CTNAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156000509PEKOS NAPLES LLC 833 COLDSTREAM CTNAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156000428PELICAN TOO LLC 316 NE 1ST STPENDLETON, OR 97801---0 31156000800PELICAN TOO LLC 316 NE 1ST STPENDLETON, OR 97801---1612 24754203582PELISSIER, MARIE JOSIANE 190 SANTA CLARA DR #6NAPLES, FL 34104---5440 46573003941PENDER, JAMES E & JOAN A 100 MACE ROADHAMPTON, NH 03842---0 28405000483PERA, JOHN CARLO GIULIANA=& ELIO MASSIMILIANO 12 CATALINA CT SUDBURY P3E5L2 CANADA 28267500448PEREZ, LISSETTE JACKELYN PEREZ 1170 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #105 NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156003302PERKINS, KATHLEEN 22 COOPER STTORRINGTON, CT 06790---6304 24754200200PERRY, DEBORAH A7360 SAINT IVES WAY #2210NAPLES, FL 34104---0 28267500406PETRILLA, PAUL & ROBERT P 3110 NORTH AVECLEVELAND, OH 44134---1345 46573002502PETROVA, GERGANA P 1230 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #303NAPLES, FL 34104---5805 31156005546PETROVSKI, FILIP & VESNA 1330 HENLEY ST #2105NAPLES, FL 34105---0 31156002468PETTERS, ADOLFO L 1270 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #205NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156007065PETUSHIN, PAUL 1205 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #5-102NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156001249PETUSHIN, PAUL TAISYA MIKHAILENKO 1265 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #107 NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156000541PIAZZA, SALVATORE J & GLADYS J 10005 CLOVERDALE PLVIENNA, VA 22182---1353 28381040004PIDGEON, WILLIAM A & JOANNE 155 PLANTATION CIRNAPLES, FL 34104---6443 67965016758PIETZONKA, KLAUS-WERNER SANDRA ZAPPE AUF DER HOEHE 63 HERFORD 32051 GERMANY 46573003145PIJUAN, PAUL A MARA MERCADO 1195 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #203 NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156001825PILOTO, OSNIEL DANIELA DUARTE 1185 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #7-107 NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156002141PLANTATION HOMEOWNERS ASSOC OF COLLIER COUNTY INC%GULF BREEZE MGNT SERVICES8910 TERRENE CT STE 200BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135---9514 67965014501PLANTATION HOMEOWNERS ASSOC OF COLLIER COUNTY INC273 AIRPORT RD S8910 TERRENE CT STE 200BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135---9514 67965015500POPOV, NIKOLA KMARGARITA POPOVA35 MERRYGALE CRESCENTETOBICOKE M9B 5N9 CANADA 31156000208POPOV, NIKOLA K & MARGARITA 35 MERRYGALE CRESCENTETOBICOKE M9B 5N9 CANADA 31156003386PRECI, ELVIRA & ANGELO192 LINDAMIR LNFAIRFIELD, CT 06824---4046 31156001689PRECI, ELVIRA & ANGELO192 LINDAMIR LNFAIRFIELD, CT 06824---4046 31156005180PRECI, SIMON E205 PANSY RDFAIRFIELD, CT 06824---3111 31156004660PRESERVE 7965 LLC562 BLUEBERRY PLACEFRANKLIN LAKES, NJ 07417---0 24754201241PUCHYR, GENEVIEVE DIANEDEBORAH J MCCABE1275 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #2105NAPLES, FL 34104---031156000101PUGLESE, DEBORAH LYNN1275 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD BLDG #2 304NAPLES, FL 34104---031156000363QUIETO, ANGELO W & ANN CTERI A ANTONUCCI7340 PROVINCE WAY APT 3303NAPLES, FL 34104---605428380920002QUILES, MIRIAM1160 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #9 108NAPLES, FL 34104---031156002963POList_500_PL202000005649.A.2.d Packet Pg. 721 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 14QUIRBACH, MARK & KAREN 504 GROTON STDUNSTABLE, MA 01827---2612 31156001867R J ZANNI & E ZANNI LIV TRUST 2504 WILLOW POND DRIVERIVERHEAD, NY 11901---0 31156000240RANGEL LEON FAMILY INC 2093 HAMLIN STREETNAPLES, FL 34120---0 31156005261RANGEL, FRANK L MARIELBA LEON MUNOZ 1230 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD 103 NAPLES, FL 34104---0 46573004801RASOR, JAMES N 1170 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #304NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156003564RAZBIN, VLADIMIR SNEJANA MOUELHI 843 MARYLAND AVENUE OTTAWA K2H OH9 CANADA 31156007560REED, CARL R & MELINDA C 4 MARLBORO DRIVECLIFTON PARK, NY 12065---0 31156005229REFERENCE ONLY BRIAR LANDING AT THE ENCLAVE CONDOMINIUM00400244301REFERENCE ONLY COUNTRY HAVEN CONDOMINIUM 228480162508REFERENCE ONLY COUNTRY HAVEN CONDOMINIUM 328480163002REFERENCE ONLY COUNTRYSIDE III CONDO28430240001REFERENCE ONLY COUNTRYSIDE IV CONDO28430241000REFERENCE ONLY ENCLAVE AT NAPLES A CONDOMINIUM00400246202REFERENCE ONLY GRANADA LAKES VILLAS CONDOMINIUM00400247007REMBOULIS, GEORGES 1180 WILDWOOD LAKS BLVD 11-206NAPLES, FL 34104---5809 31156003881RENDA, MICHAEL & GEORGIANN 127 DEER RUN LNELGIN, IL 60120---7308 28405000085RENNIE, WILLIAM & GLORIA B 157 PLANTATION CIRNAPLES, FL 34104---6443 67965016800REXFORD, GARY S & MAUREEN P 7360 ST IVES WAY #2305NAPLES, FL 34104---0 28267500503REYES, MAGALY J 10017 VILLAGIO GARDENS LN #108ESTERO, FL 33928---0 31156005627RHODES, KEVIN R & SANDRA D 6368 BRAMPTON COURTALEXANDRIA, VA 22304---0 28273750208RIBEROL INVESTMENT LLC 131 25TH STREET SWNAPLES, FL 34117---0 46573004063RIBEROL INVESTMENT LLC 408 7TH STREETCARLSTADT, NJ 07072---0 46573002845RICCIO, CLYDE 521A WOODWARD AVENEW HAVEN, CT 06512---1956 31156004589RICCIO, CLYDE A 521A WOODWARD AVENEW HAVEN, CT 06512---1956 31156003742RICHARDSON, TIMOTHY 3817 ROBERTS LNARLINGTON, VA 22207---0 31156001744RICHES, THOMAS W 1230 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD # 108NAPLES, FL 34104---5805 31156005368RICHETELLI, ROBERTA M WILLIAM F RICHETELLI 1275 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #102 NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156000046RIOS, MARCO A RIOS CALLE LA VERTIENTE 145 LA MOLINA LIMA PERU 46573003349RIVAS, XIOMARA 1150 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #108NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156002565RIVERA KRPAN, IRMA Z 2326 ROSE BRANCH CTBROOKEVILLE, MD 20833---0 31156002442RIVERA KRPAN, IRMA Z 2326 ROSE BRANCH CTBROOKVILLE, MD 20833---0 31156005067RIVERA, PETER & ELIZABET 4510 BOTANICAL PLACE CIRCLE #101NAPLES, FL 34112---0 31156005164ROBAUL, MERLE VIANNEY 1230 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #208NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156005520ROBO, PHILIP L & JANE A 10 KING COURTLEICESTER, MA 01524---0 28273750046RODRIGUEZ, LAURA82 BURNT PINE DRIVENAPLES, FL 34119---0 31156003140RODRIGUEZ, VANESSA E 1210 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #102NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156004440ROGERS, WILLIAM B JUDY E FRIEDRICH ROGERS 7360 PROVINCE WAY #4309 NAPLES, FL 34104---0 28405000580ROGOZIA, JOHNNY 20 DOWNEY DRIVEHUNTINGTON, NY 11743---5147 31156006341ROPPO, ROCCO M 174 PLANTATION CIRNAPLES, FL 34104---6400 67965017304ROSA, JAMES K 1185 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD # 108NAPLES, FL 34104---5813 31156002167ROSE, JAY M KA TING CHAN 108 SANTA CLARA DR #10 NAPLES, FL 34104---0 46573000504ROSE, TIMOTHY M & MELISSA ANN 158 PLANTATION CIRNAPLES, FL 34104---6400 67965017702ROVIRA, ALFONSO & SUSANA 1180 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #303NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156003946RUEL, RICHARD S 137 DAY STREETMANCHESTER, NH 03104---0 28273750101RUIZ, ANA I & FEDERICO 1347 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #1NAPLES, FL 34104---6425 24754203388RUIZ, YENY 11350 NW 53RD LANEDORAL, FL 33178---0 31156003467RUKAVINA, CLAIRE 12443 ROSE BEACH LINE #157MORPETH N0P 1X0 CANADA 31156003920RUSSELL, KIRBY & CELINA PO BOX 304MOOSEHORN R0C 2E0 CANADA 31156006862RUWE PROPERTIES LLC 4810 LAKEWOOD BLVDNAPLES, FL 34112---0 31156000143S CLARA GRANADA 142-5 LLC 88 CAMBRIDGE DRSOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074---1551 46573001684SAAVEDRA, RUBEN LAURA SAAVEDRA 7 MADOC DR BRAMPTON L6V 1Z8 CANADA 31156006901SAAVEDRA, RUBEN & LAURA 7 MADOC DRIVEBRAMPTON L6V 1Z8 CANADA 31156005902SAAVEDRA, RUBEN ADOLFO LAURA GONZALEZ SAAVEDRA 7 MADOC DRIVE BRAMPTON L6V 1Z8 CANADA 31156003409SAHAKIAN, MICHAEL & CATHERINE 5 SCOTTVIEW CTROCKVILLE, MD 20854---0 46573000025SAKHIPOVA, GULNARA1275 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #106NAPLES, FL 34104---031156000127SALLEMI, JOSEPH W3 SOUTHERN WAYHOLTSVILLE, NY 11742---1079 31156000088SALLEMI, WILLIAM & MARIA83 ABBOTT AVEMASTIC, NY 11950---122931156005465SANCHEZ, LISETTE DELGADO4660 1ST AVE SWNAPLES, FL 34119---031156003988POList_500_PL202000005649.A.2.d Packet Pg. 722 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 15SANDOVAL, FREDERICK 190 SANTA CLARA DR UNIT 1NAPLES, FL 34104---0 46573003844SANDOVAL, FREDERICK 5567 27TH COURT SW #ANAPLES, FL 34116---0 46573000300SANDUBRAE, STEVEN D DENISE M JABBOUR-SANDUBRAE 60 FORDCROFT GROSSE POINTE, MI 48236---0 31156005122SANTA BARBARA HOLDINGS LLC 724 W 500 S #800WEST BOUNTIFUL, UT 84087---0 46573000782SANTA BARBARA LANDINGS PROPERTY OWNER'S ASSN INC 145 SANTA CLARA DR NAPLES, FL 34104---0 00400200002SANTIAGO, TOMAS 190 SANTA CLARA DR #7NAPLES, FL 34104---0 46573003967SASTRE, GASTON MARK 1240 WILDWOOD LAKE BLVD #108NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156005766SASTRE, RUBEN RUBEN=& ELENA SASTRE 833 COLDSTREAM CT NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156007227SASTRE, RUBEN O 833 COLDSTREAM CTNAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156001346SCHMIDT, KEVIN 4708 OSSABAW WAYNAPLES, FL 34119---0 24754204141SCHMUCK, DEREK A TERRY=& VALERIE LINDA ECCLES 114 DUNCAIRN CRESCENT HAMILTON L9C 6G1 CANADA 28380800009SCHOENKNECHT, ROSEMARY 7784 SCARLET CTNAPLES, FL 34104---6414 67965017809SCHOOL DISTRICT-CPE CALUSA PARK ELEMENTARY % SUPERINTENDENT 5775 OSCEOLA TRL NAPLES, FL 34109---919 00399840007SCOTT, MALGORZATA 1160 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD 201NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156002989SEAHRA, MALKIAT ALTHEA SEAHRA 422 BEAMISH ST PORT STANLEY N5I 0A7 CANADA 31156002808SEAVEY, BRIAN 151 PLANTATION CIRNAPLES, FL 34104---6443 67965016651SEEFELD, SHARON C 911 MAGILL AVECOLLINGSWOOD, NJ 08107---2036 31156002581SERGI, RICHARD L 87 WEST RDLONDONDERRY, NH 03053---3113 31156001469SEVERINA, NADEJDA N 8600 SHORE FRONT PKWY APT 5FROCKAWAY BEACH, NY 11693---220331156002387SGARIATA III, ANTHONY J CHERIE K SGARIATA 7193 KLOCK RD CANASTOTA, NY 13032---0 28381200006SHAPIRO, NATALIA 1140 PFINGSTEN RDGLENVIEW, IL 60025---2521 31156005889SHARON, BECKY & SCOTT 410 FLAGSHIP DR #801NAPLES, FL 34108---0 24754203320SHARON, BECKY & SCOTT 410 FLAGSHIP DR #801NAPLES, FL 34108---0 24754203281SHUAIPI, LINDITA & FATMIR 8211 IBIS COVE CIRNAPLES, FL 34119---7722 24754200666SIERRA, VIVIAN I & JOSE 2920 SW 1ST AVEMIAMI, FL 33129---2750 46573003284SIEVERT, CARL B 7773 SCARLET CTNAPLES, FL 34104---0 67965018109SIKORSKI, JOHN A & AGNES M 7360 ST IVES WAY # 2306NAPLES, FL 34104---0 28267500529SIMON, RONNIE & ELIZABETH C 2 MARSHA DRDELRAN, NJ 08075---0 31156005083SKILLIN, MARK & CHERYL 94 WINTERWOOD DRLONDONDERRY, NH 03053---0 46573000407SKP PROPERTIES & SALES LLC 12915 BRYNWOOD PRESERVE LANENAPLES, FL 34105---0 46573004885SKY TEAM GRANADA LAKES LLC 724 W 500 S STE 800WEST BOUNTIFUL, UT 84087---0 46573000986SKY TEAM LLC 724 WEST 500 SOUTH #800W BOUNTIFUL, UT 84087---0 46573002366SKYTEAM LLC 724 W 500 S #800WEST BOUNTIFUL, UT 84087---0 46573002162SKYTEAM LLC 724 W 500 S #800WEST BOUNTIFUL, UT 84087---0 46573001202SKYTEAM LLC 724 W 500 S #800WEST BOUNTIFUL, UT 84087---0 46573003365SKYTEAM LLC 724 W 500 S #800WEST BOUNTIFUL, UT 84087---0 46573002120SKYTEAM LLC 724 W 500 S #800WEST BOUNTIFUL, UT 84087---0 46573001189SKYTEAM LLC 724 W 500 S #800WEST BOUNTIFUL, UT 84087---0 46573000944SKYTEAM LLC 724 W 500 S #800WEST BOUNTIFUL, UT 84087---0 46573001448SKYTEAM LLC 724 W 500 S #800WEST BOUNTIFUL, UT 84087---0 46573004526SKYTEAM LLC 724 W 500 S #800WEST BOUNTIFUL, UT 84087---0 46573004322SKYTEAM LLC 724 W 500 S #800WEST BOUNTIFUL, UT 84087---0 46573000643SKYTEAM LLC 724 W 500 S #800WEST BOUNTIFUL, UT 84087---0 46573003763SKYTEAM LLC 724 W 500 S #800WEST BOUNTIFUL, UT 84087---0 46573001121SKYTEAM LLC 724 W 500 S #800WEST BOUNTIFUL, UT 84087---0 46573001804SKYTEAM LLC 724 W 500 S #800WEST BOUNTIFUL, UT 84087---0 46573002764SKYTEAM LLC 724 W 500 S #800WEST BOUNTIFUL, UT 84087---0 46573002382SKYTEAM LLC 724 W 500 S #800WEST BOUNTIFUL, UT 84087---0 46573000821SKYTEAM LLC 724 W 500 S #800WEST BOUNTIFUL, UT 84087---0 46573000863SKYTEAM LLC 724 W 500 S #800WEST BOUNTIFUL, UT 84087---0 46573004005SKYTEAM LLC 724 W 500 S #800WEST BOUNTIFUL, UT 84087---0 46573002780SKYTEAM LLC 724 W 500 S #800WEST BOUNTIFUL, UT 84087---0 46573002188SKYTEAM LLC 724 W 500 S #800WEST BOUNTIFUL, UT 84087---0 46573000229SKYTEAM LLC 724 W 500 S #800WEST BOUNTIFUL, UT 84087---0 46573004869SKYTEAM LLC 724 W 500 S #800WEST BOUNTIFUL, UT 84087---0 46573000245SKYTEAM LLC 724 W 500 S #800WEST BOUNTIFUL, UT 84087---0 46573004267SKYTEAM LLC 724 W 500 S #800WEST BOUNTIFUL, UT 84087---0 46573000449SKYTEAM LLC 724 W 500 S #800WEST BOUNTIFUL, UT 84087---0 46573004160POList_500_PL202000005649.A.2.d Packet Pg. 723 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 16SKYTEAM LLC 724 W 500 S #800WEST BOUNTIFUL, UT 84087---0 46573002065SKYTEAM LLC 724 W 500 S #800WEST BOUNTIFUL, UT 84087---0 46573003064SKYTEAM LLC 724 W 500 S #800WEST BOUNTIFUL, UT 84087---0 46573003462SKYTEAM LLC 724 W 500 S #800WEST BOUNTIFUL, UT 84087---0 46573004762SKYTEAM LLC 724 W 500 S #800WEST BOUNTIFUL, UT 84087---0 46573002926SKYTEAM LLC 724 W 500 S #800WEST BOUNTIFUL, UT 84087---0 46573003103SKYTEAM LLC 724 W 500 S #800WEST BOUNTIFUL, UT 84087---0 46573002528SKYTEAM LLC 724 W 500 S #800WEST BOUNTIFUL, UT 84087---0 46573003501SKYTEAM LLC 724 W 500 S #800WEST BOUNTIFUL, UT 84087---0 46573003048SKYTEAM LLC 724 W 500 S #800WEST BOUNTIFUL, UT 84087---0 46573004568SKYTEAM LLC 724 W 500 S #800WEST BOUNTIFUL, UT 84087---0 46573003705SKYTEAM LLC 724 W 500 S #800WEST BOUNTIFUL, UT 84087---0 46573002803SKYTEAM LLC 724 W 500 S #800WEST BOUNTIFUL, UT 84087---0 46573001286SKYTEAM LLC 724 W 500 S #800WEST BOUNTIFUL, UT 84087---0 46573001668SKYTEAM LLC 724 W 500 S #800WEST BOUNTIFUL, UT 84087---0 46573003983SKYTEAM LLC 724 W 500 S #800WEST BOUNTIFUL, UT 84087---0 46573002104SKYTEAM LLC 724 W 500 S #800WEST BOUNTIFUL, UT 84087---0 46573004306SKYTEAM LLC 724 W 500 S #800WEST BOUNTIFUL, UT 84087---0 46573001260SKYTEAM LLC 724 W 500 S #800WEST BOUNTIFUL, UT 84087---0 46573004445SKYTEAM LLC 724 W 500 S #800WEST BOUNTIFUL, UT 84087---0 46573004487SKYTEAM LLC 724 W 500 S #800WEST BOUNTIFUL, UT 84087---0 46573003527SKYTEAM LLC 724 W 500 S #800WEST BOUNTIFUL, UT 84087---0 46573000805SKYTEAM LLC 724 W 500 S #800WEST BOUNTIFUL, UT 84087---0 46573000546SKYTEAM LLC 724 W 500 S #800WEST BOUNTIFUL, UT 84087---0 46573004623SKYTEAM LLC 724 W 500 S #800WEST BOUNTIFUL, UT 84087---0 46573002748SKYTEAM LLC 724 W 500 S #800WEST BOUNTIFUL, UT 84087---0 46573004241SKYTEAM LLC 724 W 500 S #800WEST BOUNTIFUL, UT 84087---0 46573001820SKYTEAM LLC 724 W 500 S #800WEST BOUNTIFUL, UT 84087---0 46573004403SMITH, JOSEPH M & SHARON A 21 SANDERLING AVEPOWELL, OH 43065---7587 31156007104SMITH, STEVEN D 5755 STATE ROUTE 13CHITTENANGO, NY 13037---0 31156005685SOARES, PAULO 2401 PYRAMID CRESMISSISSAUGA L5K 1E1 CANADA 31156002264SOFRONOVA, OLGA 1180 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD 204NAPLES, FL 34104---5809 31156003849SOLARI, JAMES 15107 GRANDVIEW DRORLAND PARK, IL 60467---0 28405000166SORRENTINO, ALBERT P ROSEMARIE A SORRENTINO 325 MALDEN ST REVERE, MA 02151---5642 28380360002SORRENTINO, ALBERT PROSEMARIE A SORRENTINO 325 MALDEN STREET REVERE, MA 02151---0 28380400001SPINA, JEROME J 2100 CARTER RDGENEVA, NY 14456---9502 46573001325SPITALIERI, JOSEPH 1 CHEESEBROUGH STREETSTATEN ISLAND, NY 10312---0 31156000606SPOSATO, LOUIS & KIMBERLY ANNE 42 CRESCENT STHICKSVILLE, NY 11801---0 31156001883ST GEORGE GROUP CORP 3310 GRANADA BLVDCORAL GABLES, FL 33134---0 00400246503STALLONE, THEODORE R & JILL E 116 VERSAILLES CIRNAPLES, FL 34112---0 31156000826STARKWEATHER, MASON 1195 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD UNIT 6 303NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156001948STEIGER, PATRICIA SUSAN ARLENE STEIGER 172 PLANTATION CIR NAPLES, FL 34104---6400 67965017359STEINMULLER, SHAWN PO BOX 1407QUOGUE, NY 11959---1407 31156002646STOCK, JOHN & LYNN BARRY 405 COVE CTSEASIDE HEIGHTS, NJ 08751---1104 31156000321STOLL, JOSUE LANDOLTSTRASSE 19BERN 3007 SWITZERLAND 46573001422STOLYAR, LEONORA & BRONISLAV 46 SANDTRAP CIRWARMINSTER, PA 18974---1669 31156001605STORY, LISA MARY 4 BEACON PARK APT BAMHERST, NY 14228---0 31156002662STOVALL FAMILY TRUST 3553 PERIWINKLE WAYNAPLES, FL 34114---0 31156005009STRAUB, VELINDA 108 SANTA CLARA DR APT 16NAPLES, FL 34104---5411 46573000627STROHL FAMILY LLC 328 BOW LINE BENDNAPLES, FL 34103---0 00400244107STUMPF, EDWARD C & MARY F 412 LOIS LANESCHENECTADY, NY 12304---0 31156003823STUTSON, VICKI K OBRADORSALEX G STUTSON5563 MARICOPA DRIVESIMI VALLEY, CA 93063---031156007201STUVE, ROBERT1150 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #202NAPLES, FL 34104---031156002604SUAREZ, YEGNI M AROCHA108 SANTA CLARA DRNAPLES, FL 34104---046573000342SUDIT, EDWARDIRINA RUBINSHTEIN31 DUNNERDALE RDMORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950---1253 31156005423SUDIT, RUFINA11 KRISTI DREAST HANOVER, NJ 07936---3219 31156001045SULLIVAN, BRIAN & CHERYL2 STEVENSON STREETLYNBROOK, NY 11563---031156007162SULLIVAN, BRIAN P & CHERYL2 STEVENSON STLYNBROOK, NY 11563---031156001087POList_500_PL202000005649.A.2.d Packet Pg. 724 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 17SUN APPLE PROPERTIES LLC % FRANCIS A UZZI,ESQ 210 SUMMIT AVE #A11 MONTVALE, NJ 07645---0 24754204662SUN APPLE PROPERTIES LLC 210 SUMMIT AVE #A11MONTVALE, NJ 07645---0 31156003124SUN APPLE PROPERTIES LLC 210 SUMMIT AVENUE SUITE A11MONTVALE, NJ 07645---0 31156006480SUPER FELICES LLC 4380 7TH AVE NWNAPLES, FL 34119---0 31156006202SUYANA LLC 1534 GABRIEL STHOLLYWOOD, FL 33020---3250 46573004788SUYANA LLC 401 E LAS OLAS BLVD #130 655FT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301---2477 46573004843SUYANA LLC 401 E LAS OLAS BLVD #130-655FT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301---0 46573000180TAN AND CARROLL LLC 8085 PRINCETON DRIVENAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156005384TANKB 2010 LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754203621TANKB 2010 LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754204701TANKB 2010 LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754204086TANKB 2010 LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754202729TANKB 2010 LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754201607TANKB 2010 LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754204109TDT INVESTMENTS GROUP LLC 21410 NE 19TH AVEMIAMI, FL 33179---0 24754201623TDVA LLC 999 SW 1ST AVE SUITE PH4MIAMI, FL 33130---0 46573001383TDVA LLC PO BOX 166386MIAMI, FL 33116---0 46573002625TEGRENO LLC 9901 NW 80TH AVE #3HHIALEAH, FL 33016---0 31156001427THALIN, DEBRA & KEVIN 7732 PALISADES AVE NEOSTEGO, MN 55330---0 31156006969THALIN, KEVIN & DEBRA 7732 PALISADES AVE NEOSTEGO, MN 55330---0 31156007120THOMAS J SACCONE REV TRUST 7 GRANT AVENUESMITHTOWN, NY 11787---5518 28273750224THOMAS, NICHOLAS P 8 HENDERSON DRNAPLES, FL 34114---8205 31156000224THOMAS, SHARYN L & JOHN E 727 PROEHLS TRLHUDSON, WI 54016---1369 28381120005THOMPSON JR, FREDERICK L LISA MAY THOMPSON 7340 PROVINCE WAY #3302 NAPLES, FL 34104---6054 28380880003TITUS, JOHN 1170 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD 102NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156003247TMR INVESTMENTS INC #135 3564 AVALON PARK BLVD E STE 1ORLANDO, FL 32828---0 46573003080TMR INVESTMENTS INC #157 3564 AVALON PARK BLVD E STE 1ORLANDO, FL 32828---0 46573003721TMR INVESTMENTS INC #157 3564 AVALON PARK BLVD E STE 1ORLANDO, FL 32828---0 46573001723TMR INVESTMENTS INC #157 3564 AVALON PARK BLVD E SUITE 1ORLANDO, FL 32828---0 46573001244TMR INVESTMENTS INC #157, 3564 AVALON PARK BLVD E #1ORLANDO, FL 32828---0 31156002028TMR INVESTMENTS INC #157, 3564 AVALON PARK BLVD E STE #1ORLANDO, FL 32828---0 31156003108TMS 13901 LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754200022TOBY USA LLC11925 COLLIER BLVD STE 102NAPLES, FL 34116---0 46573001901TOLEDO, ARMANDO CID M DE LAS MERCEDES O BERMUDEZ 1190 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #202NAPLES, FL 34116---031156004204TOLHURST, LYNDA C42 NEWGREEN CRESBRAMPTON L6S 4Y1 CANADA 46573003381TOLHURST, LYNDA CAROL42 NEWGREEN CRESENTBRAMPTON L6S 4Y1 CANADA 46573003323TOMKIEL, VICTOR & CYNTHIA A 7 LEBANON DRBRIELLE, NJ 08730---154831156000347TONKIN, STEPHEN & SUZANNE48 STAR LAKE RDPO BOX 111TIMMINS P4N 7C5 CANADA 31156003360TORRES, ANGEL ANTONIOSANDRA NELIDA RENZACCI122 STONEBRIAR DRIVEMAPLE L6A 2N1 CANADA31156000703TRAPANESE JR, LOUIS1185 WILDWOOD LKS BLVD #303NAPLES, FL 34104---031156002345TRERAMA MANAGEMENT LLC45 47 40TH STREETLIC, NY 11004---028267500309TRIGUEIROS, ANTONIO & BEATRIZ 1860 W CROWN POINTE BLVDNAPLES, FL 34112---360831156007007TRUJILLO, GLORIAGONZALO MORALES CRUZ176 PLANTATION CIRNAPLES, FL 34104---067965017252TRUJILLO, MARAY1270 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #201NAPLES, FL 34104---031156006985TURNER, JUDITH7360 ST IVES WAY #2101NAPLES, FL 34104---028267500024ULTRA BROS 2010 LLC2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BCH, FL 33160---024754200242ULTRA BROS 2010 LLC2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754201225ULTRA BROS 2010 LLC2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754201885ULTRA BROS 2010 LLC2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754200585ULTRA BROS 2011 LLC2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754203087ULTRA BROS 2012 LLC2390 N E 172ND STREETNORTH MIAMI BCH, FL 33160---0 24754204688ULTRA BROS 2012 LLC2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754203809ULTRA BROS 2012 LLC2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754204280ULTRA BROS 2013 LLC2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754204028ULTRA BROS 2013 LLC2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754203647ULTRA BROS 2014 LLC2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754202486ULTRA BROS 2014 LLC2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754203689ULTRA BROS 2014 LLC2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754201526POList_500_PL202000005649.A.2.d Packet Pg. 725 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 18ULTRA BROS 2014 LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754204206ULTRA BROS 2014 LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754202981ULTRA BROS 2015 LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754204329ULTRA BROS 2015 LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754204604ULTRA BROS 2015 LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754201128ULTRA BROS 2015 LLC 2390 NE 171 STN MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160---0 24754202240VALENCIA, VICTOR 7771 SCARLET CTNAPLES, FL 34104---0 67965018154VAN HOOF, DIANE LANGE LOZANA STRAAT 229ANTWERP 2018 BELGIUM 31156001524VASQUEZ, ROBERTO 160 17TH STREET SWNAPLES, FL 34117---0 46573000009VELEZ, SANDRA G 1180 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD # 104NAPLES, FL 34104---5809 31156004149VELEZ, SANTA 1185 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD # 104NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156002086VELEZ, SANTA 33 LITTLE ASHLEY DRIVEMAPLE L6A 0X3 CANADA 31156000525VERA, TED H 1752 IVER STCOLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80910---0 46573003543VERJIN SAHAKIAN REV TRUST 5 SCOTTVIEW CTROCKVILLE, MD 20854---0 46573002861VERSIACKAS, EDWARD J ANNAMARIE VERSIACKAS 281 GREAT WESTERN ROAD HARWICH, MA 02645---0 28273750321VIERA, LUIS A 142 SANTA CLARA DR #1NAPLES, FL 34104---5416 46573001600VILLAMIZAR, KATIUSKA KRISTHIAN A VILLAMIZAR 1185 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #106 NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156002125VITA, MANLEY E & SHARON 337 MAPLEWOOD RDHUNTINGTN STA, NY 11746---2854 28405000221WALLEN, SUSAN PETER DEMETRIOU THOMAS M WALWER 29 CRANES LN BREWSTER, MA 02631---2306 31156003085WALSH, GREGORY & PATRICIA 12 OAK LNNORTHPORT, NY 11768---2632 31156006781WANG, KYLER 5670 MARIMIN DRIVEBONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 46573004348WANG, KYLER 5670 MARIMIN DRIVEBONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 46573003488WANG, KYLER 5670 MARIMIN DRIVEBONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134---0 46573000261WARA, MARIANELA WATA 12225 SW 203RD TERRMIAMI, FL 33177---5260 31156001281WARNOCK, AUBREY & JEAN 11 EXECUTIVE RDSELDEN, NY 11784---1815 31156007405WAYNE HARTMANN REV TRUST NORIETA HARTMANN REV TRUST 99 SCOTT STREETMASSAPEQUA PARK, NY 11762---35031156006820WAYNE HARTMANN REV TRUST NORIETA HARTMANN REV TRUST 99 SCOTT STREET MASSAPEQUA PK, NY 11762---3501 31156006529WELLER, JASON A 1270 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD UNIT #305NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156007188WEST, MATTHEW L GREGORY P FERRO 6210 STONEY HILL RD NEW HOPE, PA 18938---0 46573001082WICKA, WAYNE S 36437 OLD HOMER RDWINONA, MN 55987---6066 31156000486WIEGE PROPERTIES LLC 8379 PALACIO TERRACE SNAPLES, FL 34114---0 28267500082WILLIAMS, KENDRA SHERETTE 1170 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD # 306NAPLES, FL 34104---5810 31156003603WILSON, KENBER SCOTT SHARON LOUISE WILSON 1160 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #106 NAPLES, FL 34104---0 31156002921WITTENBERGER, DAN & DOINA T 13 RUE DE CHEVERNYBLAINVILLE J7B 1M7 CANADA 31156006707WITTENBERGER, DOINA & DAN 13 RUE DE CHEVERNYBLAINVILLE J7B 1M7 CANADA 31156001980WONG, TONY ALANNA WONG 25 HENRICKS CRESCENTRICHMOND HILL L4B 3W4 CANADA 31156004521WONG, XIOMARA193 SANTA CLARA DRIVE #10NAPLES, FL 34104---046573004186WRIGHT, KEVIN53792 213TH STMANKATO, MN 56001---3978 31156001003WRIGHT, KEVIN LMICHAEL GONNERMAN53792 213TH STMANKATO, MN 56001---3978 31156001168WURSTER, BRIAN M6952 LONE OAK BLVDNAPLES, FL 34109---031156006105YAKOV, HAYNA855 NEW WATERFORD DRIVE #102NAPLES, FL 34104---046573003161YANES, DANNY ARAGON1190 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #203NAPLES, FL 34104---031156004220YEANDLE, JOHN & JANET H399 JOSEPH STPORT ELGIN N0H 2C2 CANADA 28380520004YERENA, YUNIER & TERESA A170 PLANTATION CIRNAPLES, FL 34104---640067965017401YOUNG, JAMES G & EILEEN SBOX 39WYEVALE TINY L0L 2T0 CANADA 28380440003YOUNG, JOHN BWILLIAM A ZAPATA7360 SAINT IVES WAY APT 2202NAPLES, FL 34104---609828267500244YPSILANTIS, BILL VASILIOS2701 RIVER RUN CIRCLE EMIRAMAR, FL 33025---031156004880YPSILANTIS, ELEFTHERIOS7422 17 AVE #2CBROOKLYN, NY 11204---046573003909YUGO REALTY LLC67 PIERPONT RDDUDLEY, MA 01571---046573000106Z & Y GROUP LLC12883 BRYNWOOD PRESERVE LANENAPLES, FL 34105---046573002560ZANNI, MICHAEL & DINA34 BROOKFIELD RDFORT SALONGA, NY 11768---0 31156001401ZARAMERICAN HOLDINGS LLC3521 SW 177TH AVEMIRAMAR, FL 33029---166646573002049ZEOLI, MICHAEL A & KATHLEEN 10115 ALEXANDRIA LNPHILADELPHIA, PA 19116---3936 31156004246ZERWAL, PAUL & JULIE A14515 GREY FOX RUN APT 118NAPLES, FL 34110---704746573001846ZIEGELMAIER, MICHAEL FJENNIFER L ZIEGELMAIER162 PLANTATION CIRNAPLES, FL 34104---640067965017605ZIELKE, JAMIEDAVID NESARAJAHTED THIAGARAJAH3 DRUMMONDVILLE LANETORONTO M4E 3X7 CANADA 31156000884ZIELONKA, MARIUSZ30 CAROLYN CTEAST HANOVER, NJ 07936---1802 31156002361ZIMMERMANN, MARK & MARY ELLEN 1235 WILDWOOD LAKES BLVD #305NAPLES, FL 34104---031156001184POList_500_PL202000005649.A.2.d Packet Pg. 726 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 19ZUCCARO, MARTINO 1235 WILDWOOD LAKS BLVD #4-203NAPLES, FL 34104---5816 31156001029POList_500_PL202000005649.A.2.d Packet Pg. 727 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 4365 Radio Road • Suite 201 • Naples, FL 34104 • P: 239.434.6060 • www.davidsonengineering.com D esigningE xcellence Civil Engineering • Planning • Permitting August 24, 2020 Dear Property Owner, The public is invited to attend a Neighborhood Information Meeting, regarding the Bembridge Emergency Services Complex Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUDA-20200000564), being held by Davidson Engineering, Inc. on: Thursday, September 10th, 2020 at 5:30 p.m., at New Hope Ministries, located at 7675 Davis Boulevard, Naples, FL 34104 (Room 212, located on the 2nd Floor of the Event Center) The subject ±5.1-acre property is located along on the east side of Santa Barbara Boulevard, west of Calusa Park Elementary School, in Section 4, Township 50 South, and Range 26 East (see back for location map). The Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUDA) request, submitted to Collier County, is seeking approval for the following: Bembridge Emergency Services Complex (PUDA-20200000564): To request an increase in residential density from 6 units per acre to 16 units per acre, using the Affordable Housing Density Bonus, for a maximum of 82 residential units within the Bembridge Emergency Services Complex CFPUD/RPUD. Business and property owners, residents and visitors are welcome to attend the presentation to discuss the project. If you would like to participate virtually, an on-line meeting will be available. Details related to joining the meeting can be obtained by contacting the individual listed below. Reservations for in- person meeting attendance is required to ensure that the CDC guidelines for social distancing can be achieved. If you are unable to attend the meeting in-person or participate virtually, and have questions or comments, they can also be directed by mail, phone or e-mail to the individual below: Jessica Harrelson, AICP Davidson Engineering, Inc. 4365 Radio Road, Suite 201 Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-434-6060 Email: jessica@davidsonengineering.com 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 728 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 729 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) */1&340/"55&/%"/$&7*356"-"55&/%"/$& #SVDF$BSMTPO &NBJMCDBSMTPO!WFSJ[POOFU 8JMMJBN%BWJT &NBJM8JMMJBN%BWJT!GTSFTJEFOUJBMDPN 7*356"-"55&/%"/$&*/ 1&340/"55&/%"/$&*/1&340/"55&/%"/$&9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 730 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) ĞŵďƌŝĚŐĞŵĞƌŐĞŶĐLJ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐŽŵƉůĞdž WhͲW>ϮϬϮϬϬϬϬϬϱϲϰ SIGN POSTING INSTRUCTIONS (CHAPTER 8, COLLIER COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT) A zoning sign(s) must be posted by the petitioner or the petitioner’s agent on the parcel for a minimum of fifteen (15) calendar days in advance of the first public hearing and said sign(s) must be maintained by the petitioner or the petitioner’s agent through the Board of County Commissioners Hearing. Below are general guidelines for signs, however these guidelines should not be construed to supersede any requirement of the LDC. For specific sign requirements, please refer to the Administrative Code, Chapter 8 E. 1.The sign(s) must be erected in full view of the public, not more than five (5) feet from the nearest street right-of-way or easement. 2.The sign(s) must be securely affixed by nails, staples, or other means to a wood frame or to a wood panel and then fastened securely to a post, or other structure. The sign may not be affixed to a tree or other foliage. 3.The petitioner or the petitioner’s agent must maintain the sign(s) in place, and readable condition until the requested action has been heard and a final decision rendered. If the sign(s) is destroyed, lost, or rendered unreadable, the petitioner or the petitioner’s agent must replace the sign(s) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --- -- -- -- AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED AUTHORITY, PERSONALLY APPEARED JESSICA HARRELSON, AICP WHO ON OATH SAYS THAT HE/SHE HAS POSTED PROPER NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 10.03.00 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ON THE PARCEL COVERED IN PETITION NUMBER 38'$ 3/ 4365 Radio Road, Suite 201 SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT OR AGENT STREET OR P.O. BOX Jessica Harrelson, AICP, Senior Planner, Davidson Engineering, Inc. Naples, FL 34104 NAME (TYPED OR PRINTED) CITY, STATE ZIP STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing instrument was sworn to and subscribed before me thiVWKday of September , 2020, by Jessica Harrelson, AICP, who is personally known to me and who did take an oath. Signature of NotaryPublic Tocia Hamlin Rosa Printed Name of Notary Public My Commission Expires: (Stamp with serial number) NOTE: AFTER THE SIGN HAS BEEN POSTED, THIS AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE SHOULD BE RETURNED NO LATER THAN TEN (10) WORKING DAYS BEFORE THE FIRST HEARING DATE TO THE ASSIGNED PLANNER. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 731 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 732 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 733 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 734 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 735 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 736 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 737 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 738 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 739 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 740 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 741 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 742 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 743 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 744 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 745 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 746 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 747 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 748 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 749 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 750 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 751 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 752 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 753 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 754 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 755 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 756 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 757 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 758 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 759 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 760 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 761 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 762 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 763 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 764 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 765 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 766 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 767 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 768 Attachment: Attachment C - Application-Backup Materials (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliercountyfl.gov (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Hybrid Virtual Quasi-Judicial Public Hearing Waiver Emergency/Executive Order 2020-04 Hearing of the Collier County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners For Petition Number(s): _________________________________________________________________ Regarding the above subject petition number(s), ________________________________ (Name of Applicant) elects to proceed during the declared emergency with hybrid virtual public hearings of the Collier County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners, and waives the right to contest any procedural irregularity due to the hybrid virtual nature of the public hearing. Name: _________________________________ Date: ___________________________ Signature*: ______________________________ Applicant Legal Counsel to Applicant * This form must be signed by either the Applicant (if the applicant is a corporate entity, this must be an officer of the corporate entity) or the legal counsel to the Applicant. 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 769 Attachment: Attachment D - CCPC-BCC Hybrid Meeting Waiver (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) FinnTimothy From: Sent: To: Su bject: Attachments: Roy Anderson <eanderson075@gmail.com> Monday, November 9, 2020 2:22 PM FinnTimothy Fwd: Bembridge Thurs Scan201 1 0407_55_25.pdf EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. The attachments here go with the Resolution l'm sending you. Roy Anderson Life is short, play 18 ------ Forwarded message ------ From: Joe Smith <ismith@ csgcc.net> Date: Wed, Nov 4, 2020, 8:31 AM Subject: Re: Bembridge Thurs To: Roy Anderson <eanderson075@smail.com> Here you go .JS From: Roy Anderson <eanderson075@smail.com> Date: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 at 6:56 AM To: Joe Smith <ismith@csgcc.net> Subject: Re: Bembridge Thurs Yes if you could send me those today that would be great. Roy Anderson Life is short, play L8 Ok, the minutes aren't officially approved but I can provide you with the agenda and the copy of that motion specifically On Tue, Nov 3, 2020,4:16 PM.loe Smith <ismith @csscc.net> wrote: 1 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 770 Attachment: Attachment E - Opposition Letters (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) JS From: Roy Anderson <eanderson0 75@smail.com> Date: Tuesday, November 3, 2020 at 3:44 PM To: Joe Smith <ismith @csgcc.net> Subject: Re: Bembridge Thurs For the Planning Commission could we bring an official copy from your office showing date of meeting, unanimous vote etc. We'll use it later for the BCC as well. Roy Anderson Life is short, play 18 On Tue, Nov 3, 2O2O,3:28 PM Joe Smith <ismith@csecc.net> wrote: Yes, it was approved as is. J5 From: Roy Anderson <eanderson075 @gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, November 3,2020 at 2:28 PM To: Joe Smith <ism ith@csgcc. net> Subject: Bembridge Thurs Hi Joe, just checking, do we have the final resolution for Thursday? Roy Anderson Life is short, play L8 2 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 771 Attachment: Attachment E - Opposition Letters (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) RESOLUTION REGARDING THE BEMBRIDGE SERVICES COMPLEX COMMT]N'ITY FACILITIES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DAIE: September 29, 2020 COMMITTEE: Extemal Community Relations CHAIRPERSON: Roy B. Anderson CURRENT POLICY REFERENCES: 3.9. I 1.2. A. and B. WHEREAS: The project proposal is located on the east side of Santa Barbara Boulevard and is a part ofthe subject complex which comprises 39.8 acres. It includes the already-built projects of Calusa Park Elementary School, the Emergency Management Station #75, water management lakes, land for a future wastewater master pumping station (1.33 acres) and land for this proposed affordable housing project (3.77 acres), WHEREAS: The parcels of interest are the pumping station and the housing sites, which front Santa Barbara Boulevard directly opposite Countryside, specifically the Country Hollow and Country Haven communities.. The immediate project is for the housing site only, not the pump station site, WHEREAS: At a Neighborhood [nformation Meeting (NIM) on January 30, 2020, the housing project as presented consisted of42 affordable housing units to be two stories high on a site of 6.3 acres. The ECRC reviewed this project and concluded that it would have a minimal impact on Countryside, however it would be monitored in the future, WHEREAS: Another NIM was held on September 10, 2020 and the project now proposed consisted of 82 affordable housing units on a 3.77 acre site and with thrce-story high buildings, WHEREAS : The 82-unit proposal will require the approval of the Collier County Ptanning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners for density bonuses for affordable housing. Further, they propose applying th6 density bonus not only to the project's 3.77 acres but also to the 1.33 acres designated for the pumping station for purposes ofcalculating the total allowable units which will all be on the 3.77 acre site. WHEREAS: The increase in size of the project as now proposed will have a material effect on Countryside including most importantly, visual impacts as well as noise and traffic impacts' Countrysiders in this area are aheady impacted by sirens from EMS vehicles, NOW, THEREFORE: That the Master Board go on record as opposing use of the affordable housing bonus and use of the pumping station land to achieve the total Project size of 82 housing units with three story buildings. 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 772 Attachment: Attachment E - Opposition Letters (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) MOTION Motion to consider fu rther discussion related to amending restrictions outlined in the master community documents -Article X, Section 12-Vehicles. MOTION Motion made by Bev Whiteman, seconded by Mike Cashman to approve flawless dress denim in the Lakeview Lounge and Patio as of January 1, 2021. Flawless denim is defined as not having signs of faded, worn, or frayed fabric, tears, holes, or rips in colors of indigo (very dark blue), black or white only. Final decisions on acceptable conditions of denim will be at the discretion of club management. 8 Yeas, 1 Nay (Randy Koelb) - MOTION CARRIED MOTION Motion to enter into a contract with a selected architectural/design firm to begin feasibility study ofthe amenity campus. MOTION DELAYED MOTION Motion to approve the creation of an ad hoc master plan phase ll committee and open up application process to the community. MOTION DELAYED MOTTOT{ Motion made by Mike Cashman, seconded by Ken Laycock to adopt the ECRC proposal motion opposing the 82 unit Brembridge Planned Unit Development. 9 Yeas, 0 Nays - MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY MOTION Motion made by Ken Laycock, seconded by Randy Koelb, to approve the Delinquent Members Suspension List. 9 Yeas, 0 Nays - MOION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY NO MOTION MADE 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 773 Attachment: Attachment E - Opposition Letters (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) f 0 OT]NTRYSIDE cq,tnYsrDE corr a orNrxY a1!u! [. . vt v . v . IV V €allto Order 8:30 AM Approval of the Master Board Minutes of a. May 28,2020 Reading of the Executive Committee Minutes of a. June 9, 2020 b. Autust 11, 2020 c. September 8, 2020 d. September 15,2020 (Special Meeting) e. October 20, 2020 Committee Recommendations / Reports a. ECRC - Bembridte Development Update............,....,.......,,..,.,,............Roy Anderson, Chair General Manage/s Report....,........... ...,.....,..,..,.............Joe Smith, GM/COO Controlle/s Report,..............,............ .............,..,........,..Jeff racob, Controller Old Business a. M-Consulting Group - Cable Survey Update...................................1arry Franzen, President b. Cheryl Deering Community Marketing Pro8ram.....................................Joe Smith, GM/COO c. Review Dress Code Survey and possible revisions........................1arry Franzen, President Neu, Business a. Kitchen AC Unit - Unplanned Rep|acement........................................Joe Smith, GM/COO b. Walk-in Cooler Evap Coil & Condenser Rep|acement........................Joe Smith, GM/COO c. Resident Request- Review master document restrictions specific to pick up, trucks, campers, RVs etc...............................1arry Franzen, President d. Candidate for Open oirector Position..................................................ioe Smith, GM/COO e. Adhoc Master Plan Phase ll Committee Charter.................................Joe Smith, GM/COO f. Delinquent Member Suspension List ........ .. ......J eff Jacob, Finance Manager lx. Open Forum for Membe6 ***Owners mdy moke o stotement up to i minutes on dgendo items under old/new business, oction items ond board motions. Board Motions a, Motion to appoint Kathy Kunow to fill the remaining term of the open directot's position. Countryside Master Board ol Directors Meeting Odober 29,2O20 x. 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 774 Attachment: Attachment E - Opposition Letters (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) b. Motionto require masks in all indoor areas and the cart staging area untilfurther notice. c. Motion to approve Cheryl Deering Community Marketing proposal for a term of 5 months at 53000 per month. d. Motion to approve unplanned kitchen Wl Cooler evaporator coil and condenser replacement in the amount of S7535.42 e. Motion to approve unplanned kitchen a/c replacement in the amount of58078.50 f, Motion to consider further discussion related to amending restrictions outlined in the master community documents - Article X, Section 12 - Vehicles. t. Motion to approve flawless dress denim in the Lakeview Lounge and Patio as ofJanuary 1, 2021. Flawless dress denim us defined as not having any signs of faded, worn or frayed fabrig tears, holes or rips in the colors of indigo (very dark blue), black or white only. Final decisions on acceptable condition of denim will be at the discretion of club management. h. Motion to enter into a contract with selected architecture/design firm to conduct feasibility study of the amenity campus. i. Motion to approve the creation ofan ad hoc master plan phase ll committee and open up the application process to the community. j. Motion to approve delinquent member suspension list. Xl. Adjournment Boaid Workhop to lmmediately follow Eoard Meeting l. M-Consulting Group a. Tv/lnternet Survey Results b. Provider Proposal Comparison Presentation c. Next steps d. Board Dlscussion Please remember that your participation is limited to listening for most of the meeting except for ltem lX, the Open Forum segment. As a reminder, you are only permitted to comment on atenda items. Zoom M e eti ng I nfomotion : Topic: Odober Board MeetinS & Workshop Time: Oct 29, 2020 08:30 AM Eastern Time (US and Canada) Join Zoom Meeting hft ps://zoom.us/i/91519867315?Dwd=ZXl5WTlCZUhFRGYswi9ockVvYWZZz09 Due to social distancing practices we are not making in-person attendance available at this meeting. We are, however, providing access to this meeting via the zoom link provided below. 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 775 Attachment: Attachment E - Opposition Letters (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) Meeting lD: 915 1986 7316 Passcode: 268355 One tap mobile +73!262667 99,,97579a6n76i,,,,,,M,,268355fl US (ChicaSo) +16455588656,,91579B673rffi ,,,,,,M,,268355# US (New york) Dial by your location +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) +1 646 558 8656 US (New york) +1 301 715 8592 US (Germantown) +7 346 248 7799 US (Houston) +1 659 900 9128 US (San Jose) +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) Meeting lD: 915 1986 7316 Passcode:268355 Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/ad6AuVtVcU 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 776 Attachment: Attachment E - Opposition Letters (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) FinnTimothy From: Sent: To: Subject: Atta€hments: EXTERNAT EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. Enclosed are items for my statement opposing the proposed Bembridge project. lncluded herein is an Agenda and record of our Master Board's meeting on October 29,2020 wherein the board unanimously accepted the attached Resolution. On the 19th we may have other speakers as well. lf ready in time I will forward you their statements. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these statements. 1 Roy Anderson < eanderson0T5@gmail.com > Monday, November 9,2020 2:25 PM FinnTimothy Bembridge Nov 19 MB Res Bembridge.pdf 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 777 Attachment: Attachment E - Opposition Letters (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) RESOLUTION REGARDING THE BEMBRIDGE SERVICES COMPLEX COMMI.INITY FACILITIES PLANNED LI-NIT DEVELOPMENT DAIE: September 29, 2020 COMMITTEE: External Community Relations CHAIRPERSON: Roy B. Anderson CURRENT POLICY REFERENCES: 3.9.11.2. A. and B WHEREAS: The project proposal is located on the east side of Santa Barbara Boulevard and is apart of the subject complex which comprises 39.8 acres. It includes the already-built projects of Calusa Park Elementary School, the Emergency Management Station #7 5, water management lakes, land for a future wastewater master pumping station (1.33 acres) and land for this proposed affordable housing project (3.77 acres), WHEREAS: The parcels of interest are the pumping station and the housing sites, which front Santa Barbara Boulevard directly opposite Countryside, specifically the Country Hollow and Country Haven communities.. The immediate project is for the housing site only, not the pump station site, WHEREAS: At aNeighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) on January 30,2020,the housing project as presented consisted of 42 affordable housing units to be two stories high on a site of 6.3 acres. The ECRC reviewed this project and concluded that it would have a minimal impact on Countryside, however it would be monitored in the future, WHEREAS: Another NIM was held on September 10,2020 and the project now proposed consisted of 82 affordable housing units on a3.77 acre site and with three-story high buildings, WHEREAS: The 82-unit proposal will require the approval of the Collier County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners for density bonuses for affordable housing. Further, they propose applying the density bonus not only to the project's 3.77 acres but also to the 1.33 acres designated for the pumping station for purposes of calculating the total allowable units which will all be on the 3.77 acre site. WHEREAS: The increase in size of the project as now proposed will have a material effect on Countryside including most importantly, visual impacts as well as noise and traffic impacts. Countrysiders in this area are already impacted by sirens from EMS vehicles, NOW THEREFORE: That the Master Board go on record as opposing use of the affordable housing bonus and use of the pumping station land to achieve the total project size of 82 housing units with three story buildings. 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 778 Attachment: Attachment E - Opposition Letters (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) FinnTimoth From: Sent: To: Cc: Roy Anderson <eanderson075@gmail.com> Tuesday, November 10, 2020 3:02 PM FinnTimothy Bev Whiteman; Joe Smith EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links. I am Beverly Whiteman, a Countryside resident and I serve on the Countryside Master Board. The Countryside Golf and Country Club comprises 1133 families living out their dreams and enjoying the amenities of the surrounding area. Our Board was disturbed to hear of the Bembridge proposal to construct three-story high buildings on santa Barbara Boulevard within clear view of Countryside residents. The eastern vista seen by Countryside is generally low profile even with the Calusa Park School and the EMS station structu res. The original proposal for two-story structures was much more palatable to our Board. We appreciate the need for affordable rental housing in the County which this project will provide. However, we implore you to eliminate a potential eyesore from being inflicted upon our residents. Please be advised that our Master Board unanimously approved a Resolution opposing this Bembridge proposal on October 29, 2020.This Resolution is being provided by others to the planning Commission. 1 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 779 Attachment: Attachment E - Opposition Letters (14270 : PL20200000564 Bembridge PUDA) 12/03/2020 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.3 Item Summary: ***Note: This item was continued from the November 19, 2020 CCPC meeting and is further continued to the December 17, 2020 CCPC Meeting.*** PL20190002680-CU - Safety Service Facility Golden Gate and DeSoto Blvd (CU) - A Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida providing for the establishment of a conditional use to allow a government safety service facility for fire and emergency medical services within the Estates (E) Zoning District with a Wellfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zone W-4 (ST/W-4), pursuant to Sections 2.03.01.B.1.c.8 and 2.01.03.G.1.e of the Collier County Land Development Code for a 5.46+/- acre property located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Golden Gate Blvd. East and DeSoto Blvd. in Section 9, Township 49 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager] Meeting Date: 12/03/2020 Prepared by: Title: Operations Analyst – Planning Commission Name: Diane Lynch 11/19/2020 3:54 PM Submitted by: Title: Manager - Planning – Zoning Name: Ray Bellows 11/19/2020 3:54 PM Approved By: Review: Planning Commission Diane Lynch Review item Skipped 11/19/2020 3:51 PM Zoning Diane Lynch Review Item Skipped 11/19/2020 3:51 PM Zoning Diane Lynch Additional Reviewer Skipped 11/19/2020 3:51 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Diane Lynch Review Item Skipped 11/19/2020 3:51 PM Growth Management Department Diane Lynch Review Item Skipped 11/19/2020 3:51 PM Zoning Diane Lynch Review Item Skipped 11/19/2020 3:51 PM Planning Commission Edwin Fryer Meeting Pending 12/03/2020 9:00 AM 9.A.3 Packet Pg. 780 12/03/2020 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.4 Item Summary: ***Note: This item has been continued to the December 17, 2020 CCPC Meeting.*** PL20200000191- PUDA - Heritage Bay PUDA-An Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 03- 40, as amended, the Heritage Bay Planned Unit Development, to amend Section 2.5.A of the PUD document, to clarify the ability of the property owners associations to place and operate access control facilities such as gates and control arms on private roads including but not limited to Limestone Trail, and providing for an effective date. The property is located on the northeast corner of Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard (CR 951) in Sections 13, 14, 23 and 24, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of approximately 2,562± acres. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, PLA, Principal Planner] Meeting Date: 12/03/2020 Prepared by: Title: Operations Analyst – Planning Commission Name: Diane Lynch 11/23/2020 4:51 PM Submitted by: Title: Manager - Planning – Zoning Name: Ray Bellows 11/23/2020 4:51 PM Approved By: Review: Planning Commission Diane Lynch Review item Skipped 11/23/2020 4:51 PM Zoning Diane Lynch Review Item Skipped 11/23/2020 4:51 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Diane Lynch Review Item Skipped 11/23/2020 4:51 PM Growth Management Department Diane Lynch Review Item Skipped 11/23/2020 4:51 PM Zoning Diane Lynch Review Item Skipped 11/23/2020 4:51 PM Planning Commission Edwin Fryer Meeting Pending 12/03/2020 9:00 AM 9.A.4 Packet Pg. 781 12/03/2020 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.5 Item Summary: ***Note: This item was continued from the November 5, 2020 CCPC meeting to the November 19, 2020 CCPC meeting, was further continued to the December 3, 2020 CCPC Meeting and has been continued indefinitely*** PL20190002105-CU A Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida providing for the establishment of a conditional use to allow a horticultural waste facility for the collection, transfer, processi ng, and reduction of solid waste with the accessory use of incidental retail sale of processed horticultural material within an Agricultural (A) Zoning District with a Rural Fringe Mixed Use Overlay-Receiving Lands (RFMUO-Receiving Lands), pursuant to Section 2.03.08.A.2.a.(3)(c)iv of the Collier County Land Development Code for a ±16.43- acre property located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Tamiami Trail East (U.S. 41) and Riggs Road, approximately five miles east of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 9 51), in Section 20, Township 51 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Timothy Finn, AICP, Principal Planner] Meeting Date: 12/03/2020 Prepared by: Title: Operations Analyst – Planning Commission Name: Diane Lynch 11/19/2020 5:20 PM Submitted by: Title: Manager - Planning – Zoning Name: Ray Bellows 11/19/2020 5:20 PM Approved By: Review: Planning Commission Diane Lynch Review item Skipped 11/19/2020 5:16 PM Zoning Diane Lynch Review Item Skipped 11/19/2020 5:16 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Diane Lynch Review Item Skipped 11/19/2020 5:16 PM Growth Management Department Diane Lynch Review Item Skipped 11/19/2020 5:16 PM Zoning Diane Lynch Review Item Skipped 11/19/2020 5:16 PM Planning Commission Edwin Fryer Meeting Pending 12/03/2020 9:00 AM 9.A.5 Packet Pg. 782 12/03/2020 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 10.A Item Summary: 2021 Meeting Schedule Meeting Date: 12/03/2020 Prepared by: Title: Planner, Senior – Zoning Name: Jeremy Frantz 11/22/2020 6:31 PM Submitted by: Title: Manager - Planning – Zoning Name: Ray Bellows 11/22/2020 6:31 PM Approved By: Review: Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 11/23/2020 9:02 AM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 11/24/2020 1:07 PM Planning Commission Diane Lynch Review item Completed 11/24/2020 5:55 PM Growth Management Department James C French Review Item Completed 11/24/2020 10:45 PM Zoning Anita Jenkins Additional Reviewer Completed 11/25/2020 8:00 AM Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 11/25/2020 8:48 AM Planning Commission Edwin Fryer Meeting Pending 12/03/2020 9:00 AM 10.A Packet Pg. 783 Memorandum To: Collier County Planning Commissioners From: Jeremy Frantz, LDC Manager Date: November 22, 2020 Re: 2021 CCPC Meeting Calendar Planning Commission meetings are typically held on the first and third Thursday’s of each month. This schedule is shown below with one cancellation. Due to a previously scheduled budget workshop on June 17, 2021, staff recommends cancelling this meeting. 2021 CCPC Meeting Dates • January 7, 2021 • January 21, 2021 • February 4, 2021 • February 18, 2021 • March 4, 2021 • March 18, 2021 • April 1, 2021 • April 15, 2021 • May 6, 2021 • May 20, 2021 • June 3, 2021 • June 17, 2021 – CANCELLED • July 1, 2021 • July 15, 2021 • August 5, 2021 • August 19, 2021 • September 2, 2021 • September 16, 2021 • October 7, 2021 • October 21, 2021 • November 4, 2021 • November 18, 2021 • December 2, 2021 • December 16, 2021 10.A.a Packet Pg. 784 Attachment: 2021 Schedule Memorandum (14286 : 2021 Meeting Schedule)