The URL can be used to link to this page

CCPC Agenda 06/17/2021 Collier County Planning Commission Page 1 Printed 6/10/2021 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 June 17, 2021 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. June 2021 Collier County Planning Commission Page 2 Printed 6/10/2021 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call by Secretary 3. Addenda to the Agenda 4. Planning Commission Absences 5. Approval of Minutes A. May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes 6. BCC Report - Recaps 7. Chairman's Report 8. Consent Agenda 9. Public Hearings A. Advertised 1. ***NOTE: This item has been continued from the May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting*** PL20200000385 GMPA - An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners proposing amendment to the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 89-05, as amended, specifically amending the Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub- Element of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map and Map Series to add the Santa Barbara Boulevard/Golden Gate Parkway Commercial subdistrict to the Estates-Commercial district to allow up to 21,500 square feet of permitted and conditional uses in the C-3, Intermediate Commercial zoning district, and a car wash, and furthermore directing transmittal of the adopted amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. The subject property is 6.5± acres and located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Santa Barbara Boulevard and Golden Gate Parkway in Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion item to PL20200000386) [Coordinator: Eric Johnson, Principal Planner] June 2021 Collier County Planning Commission Page 3 Printed 6/10/2021 2. ***NOTE: This item has been continued from the May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting*** PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD - An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which includes the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from the Estates (E) zoning district to a Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) zoning district for a project known as 3001 SB CPUD. The project will allow up to 21,500 square feet of permitted and conditional uses in the C-1, Commercial Professional and General Office district, through C-3, Intermediate Commercial zoning district and a car wash, with the final mix of uses subject to a maximum traffic generation rate. The property is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Santa Barbara Boulevard and Golden Gate Parkway in Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 6.4± acres; and by providing an effective date. (Companion item to GMPA-PL20200000385 Santa Barbara Boulevard/Golden Gate Parkway Commercial Subdistrict) [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, PLA, Principal Planner] 3. *** NOTE: This item has been continued from the May 26, 2021 CCPC Meeting, to June 3, 2021 CCPC Meeting, it was further continued to June 17, 2021 CCPC Meeting *** PL20200001481 - An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which includes the comprehensive land regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, to allow Oyster and Shellfish Processing, Distribution and On-Site Sales of Oysters and Shellfish and Ancillary Convenience Retail, on waterfront property which may include Ecotours and the Storage of Two Vessels, and to establish Design Standards for Waterfront Dependent Uses that are approved by Conditional Use in the Goodland Zoning Overlay (GZO) District, by providing for: Section One, Recitals; Section Two, Findings of Fact; Section Three, adoption of amendments to the Land Development Code, more specifically amending the following: Chapter Two – Zoning Districts and Uses, including Section 2.03.07 Overlay Zoning Districts; Chapter Four – Site Design and Development Standards, including Section 4.02.22 Design Standards for GZO District; Section Four, Conflict and Severability; Section Five, inclusion in the Collier County Land Development Code; and Section Six, effective date. [Coordinator: Richard Henderlong, MPA, Principal Planner] 4. PL2021000603 GMPA - A Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners proposing amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 89-05, as amended, relating to the density bonus pool within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay and specifically amending the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay of the Future Land Use Element, to change requirements for the use of the density bonus pool; and furthermore directing transmittal of the amendments to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. [Coordinator: Josephine Medina, Principal Planner] B. Noticed 10. Old Business 11. New Business June 2021 Collier County Planning Commission Page 4 Printed 6/10/2021 12. Public Comment 13. Adjourn 06/17/2021 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 5.A Item Summary: May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes Meeting Date: 06/17/2021 Prepared by: Title: Operations Analyst – Planning Commission Name: Diane Lynch 06/04/2021 9:25 PM Submitted by: Title: Planner, Principal – Zoning Name: Anita Jenkins 06/04/2021 9:25 PM Approved By: Review: Planning Commission Diane Lynch Review item Completed 06/04/2021 9:25 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 06/07/2021 2:28 PM Zoning Anita Jenkins Zoning Director Review Completed 06/07/2021 2:41 PM Growth Management Department James C French GMD Deputy Dept Head Completed 06/08/2021 4:18 PM Planning Commission Edwin Fryer Meeting Pending 06/17/2021 9:00 AM 5.A Packet Pg. 5 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida May 20, 2021 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 Paul Shea Robert L. Klucik, Jr. (attended remotely) Tom Eastman, Collier County School Board Representative ABSENT: Joe Schmitt Christopher T. Vernon ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney May 20, 2021 Page 1 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) P R O C E E D I N G S CHAIRMAN FRYER: Greetings everyone. Welcome to the May 20, 2021, 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: Commissioner Klucik has requested that we vote to permit him to participate remotely. And, Mr. County Attorney, I think we're still within the bounds of -- MR. KLATZKOW: As long as we're under the local and state emergency orders, it will be permissible. Once the orders expire, that will be the end of it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. May I have a motion to allow Commissioner -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Make that motion. COMMISSIONER FRY: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Good morning, Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER FRY: This is where you say hello, Robb. MR. SUMMERS: We've got some audio issues. Hold on one second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, we've got a quorum. 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? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Vernon? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Klucik? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRY: Still working on Robb. Okay. We have four in person and I believe one virtual, to be confirmed. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And Mr. Vernon and Mr. Schmitt both have excused absences. May 20, 2021 Page 2 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. All right. Addenda to the agenda, Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: I don't have any changes to the current agenda as it's been provided to you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. MS. JENKINS: I do. MR. BELLOWS: Oh, we do have -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Jenkins. MS. JENKINS: Good morning. Anita Jenkins, Zoning director. We do have one item that we would like to add under new business, and that is to discuss the evening meetings for the LDC amendments. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. I was going to talk about them at the next item, if that's all right with you. MS. JENKINS: Okay. Anywhere you would like to. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good. In line with what we talked about on Tuesday. Well, thank you. MS. JENKINS: That's my entry music. COMMISSIONER FRY: It's late. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Now, our next meeting is Wednesday, May 26th. It's a special meeting. As I will say more about in a moment, we will not be here for the evening portion, but we will be here -- we are requested to be here for the daytime portion of that special meeting on the 26th. Does anyone know if he or she cannot be in attendance? COMMISSIONER FRY: I cannot -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Is that at 9:00 a.m.? CHAIRMAN FRYER: 9:00 a.m., yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: I cannot tell you at this point. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. COMMISSIONER FRY: Business commitments. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well, we will hope that we have a quorum. I don't believe Commissioner Schmitt is going to be here on the 26th. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah, he is. He said the 26th meeting was a day he was going to be here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: He did? All right. Okay, good. Okay. Our minutes to be approved. First we have those of our attempted April 15, 2021. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ah, good morning, Mr. Klucik. We were worried about you. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Oh, I've been connected. I'm sorry. I didn't hear any -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, you've been approved for participation, so we're delighted to have you. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, great. I'm sorry. I caught you right when you just said we're having a problem with Robb, and that was the first I heard, you know, even though I've been logged in. So there you go. So I guess I really haven't missed anything. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, you haven't. COMMISSIONER FRY: That was a rhetorical statement, Robb. Mr. Chairman, we have a quorum of five. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Quorum of five. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. So our attempted minutes of April 15, and that meeting, as you know, failed for a lack of May 20, 2021 Page 3 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) quorum, but we need to take action on those minutes to create a record of why there was no substantive meeting and that it was at that time continued to a later date. So may I have a -- any corrections, changes, or additions to those minutes? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Then we have the minutes of the meeting to which the 15 April meeting was continued, and that's April 19. Any corrections, changes, or additions to those minutes? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. BCC report, recaps, Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: On the May 11th Board of County Commissioners there were no land-use items presented at that meeting. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Very good. Now let's -- before we get into our substantive agenda, let's talk about the need for an evening meeting to deal with certain LDC amendments, and the Chair recognizes Ms. Jenkins. MS. JENKINS: Thank you. Again, Anita Jenkins, Zoning director. We are requesting an evening meeting to hear those LDC amendments either June 3rd, is the preference for that date, or the second meeting in June, which I think is June 17th. So we needed to continue those items from your special meeting on the 26th, and hopefully we can get those scheduled for you on the 3rd. Currently, our projections are only to have one other item on the meeting of the 3rd, so we could start that later, but on the 26th we can see how we're going and how many items maybe continue, what kind of time you may need, but we'd like to request for an evening meeting on June 3rd. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Very good. Commissioners, anyone have a conflict, inability to May 20, 2021 Page 4 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) be there? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Everybody seems to be willing and able to be there on June 3rd. So by consensus our evening meeting will be on June 3rd beginning at five minutes after 5:00. COMMISSIONER FRY: May I ask for a clarification? Are you saying that if there are only one or two items on the normal meeting for the 3rd, we might start later in the day rather than 9:00 a.m.? MS. JENKINS: Yeah. I think that you would want to consider, you know, starting in the afternoon if you only have a couple items, because we do have to start the meeting at 5:05 for the LDC amendment. So we wouldn't want to have to bring you in and then have a break. And so we'll just help you work through that as we get closer. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That would be welcome. Thank you very much. MS. JENKINS: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, ma'am. Chairman's report, none today. Consent agenda, none today. ***We're going to public hearings. And the first matter is PL20200002234. It's the RFMUD Growth Management Plan amendments here to us for recommendation on transmittal. And the Chair recognizes Ms. Mosca. MS. MOSCA: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Michele Mosca with Zoning Division staff. And I'm not sure how to get the screen turned over. Thank you. Okay. So, Commissioners, this is the fourth restudy. There were four directed by the Board of County Commissioners, and this is the fourth. The other three have all been approved. The last you heard was the Rural Lands Stewardship Area, and that's been approved as well moving forward. CHAIRMAN FRYER: By the way, during this pause I'll just indicate that the reason we didn't ask for witnesses to be sworn in or for disclosures is because this is legislative in nature. Sorry. Go ahead. MS. MOSCA: No, that's correct. And this is the transmittal hearing so, Commissioners, you'll have another shot at this after it goes to the state agencies for review and their comment. So what I'd like to say, this review and preparation of the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use Districts, this has been a team approach. You'll see on the screen multiple disciplines were involved including Planning, Transportation, Stormwater, Housing, and Planning. I think I said that. So today -- I know that Commissioner Homiak was here when we had the approval, I believe, of the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District, you know, at the beginning with the plan amendments, but I think for the rest of you, you may or may not be familiar with them. So what I'd like to do in today's presentation is to include an overview and a history of the existing Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District of the Future Land Use Element, take you to the proposed Growth Management Plan amendments, a transfer of development rights, or what we call TDRs. So you'll hear that acronym, so Transfer of Development Rights means TDRs. So we'll take you through a credit analysis based on the proposed amendments. Future development, we'll talk about the future development and infrastructure needs in the North Belle Meade, and that's NBM on the screen in the Belle Meade area. We'll also talk about some general discussion items, and those will include public comment. We had a period of time, approximately two weeks, when these amendments were drafted and sent out for comment. Then, finally, we'll talk about staff recommendations. So just to give everyone an idea of where these -- where the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District is located, it's generally located -- and I'm trying to get this mouse to work. Yep, here we May 20, 2021 Page 5 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) go. So it's generally located east of the urban area, and that's those areas in yellow right here, and west of Golden Gate, Golden Gate Estates, and that's that area here. So the rural fringe is approximately 73,000 acres in size. The receiving areas noted here in this teal color, that consists of approximately 22,000 acres. And so here is the receiving areas, these areas here. And we'll go into further detail and discussion about those areas. Your sending areas, which are identified here in orange, here's the Belle Meade area, and that's south of I-75, and then your North Belle Meade area here, and then you have some other smaller sending areas throughout here. And these are approximately 45,000 acres in size with more than half of the acreage in private ownership and the remaining acreage in public ownership. And the neutral areas or these hatched areas that you can see here, there's some throughout, those consist of approximately 9,500 acres, and we'll talk about all of those areas as we move forward through the presentation. I just want to let everyone know, we probably have somewhere around 28 to 30 slides. Not all substantive information, but just wanted to give you an idea of where we're headed. So let's talk a little bit about the history of the RFMUD, Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Sure. If you could just switch to the slide -- previous slide. I have one quick question. MS. MOSCA: Yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: All right. So if you're on Immokalee Road, you have a tan or peach colored box. MS. MOSCA: This here? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. What is that? MS. MOSCA: That's Orangetree. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: That's Orangetree, okay. MS. MOSCA: Yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So that's just an existing development. That's why that's highlighted? MS. MOSCA: Yes. It's a settlement area, yes. It has higher densities -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Thank you. MS. MOSCA: Oh, sure. Okay. So back to the history. So in the 1990s, there was a requirement to conduct a comprehensive study of our Comprehensive Plan or our Growth Management Plan, and that occurred every seven years under state law. The evaluation would typically result in amendments to the plan. In 1997, the county adopted these amendments based on this evaluation which were ultimately found to not be in compliance with state laws. So after administrative law hearings in 1999, the Governor and cabinet issued a final order which included a requirement for, within a three-year period the county had to address deficiencies within the final order for the rural lands. So these are listed on the slide, and they include protections of prime agricultural land, direct incompatible land uses away from -- and their habitat -- and their listed species away from development, habitat, and protect the environmental lands, and also provide measures to curtail urban sprawl. So to address some of these deficiencies, the county adopted the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District, which includes both regulations that restrict uses and residential density on sending lands, and there's a voluntary TDR program or, again, the Transfer of Development Rights program that provides for residential development rights to be transferred from sending lands. These areas, again, in orange. So to transfer the development rights from these areas to receiving areas. So these areas in this bluish color here, which is the compensation mechanism for sending landowners May 20, 2021 Page 6 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) for their presumed loss in property value caused by the reduction in density as well as the land uses. So for owners of sending lands that choose to participate in the Transfer of Development Rights program, here is a sample calculation of the potential TDRs that can be generated from a 40-acre sending-lands parcel. There are four potential TDR credits. The base credit, calculated at one TDR per five acres, an early-entry credit to encourage participation in the program, restoration and maintenance credit for creating and implementing a plan to restore the property's environmental integrity, and the conveyance credit for the property to be conveyed to an approved agency for long-term maintenance. So all these credits are calculated at a rate of one TDR for each five acres or legal lot of record. So in this scenario, an example of a 40-acre parcel utilizing all TDR credits, it would generate 32 Transfer of Development Rights credits. MR. EASTMAN: Michele, do you know how much a credit goes for, roughly? MS. MOSCA: It ranges. The base credit is still required to be 25,000. A lot of times they are a package deal, so an individual credit could come anywhere from 15- and I heard as high as 18,000. So 15,000 to 18,000 is what I've heard. So I don't know definitively, but I'm sure when someone gets up as a member of the public, they may be able to give you some additional information, but we do have record of the 25,000 requirement. So looking at the receiving lands, at a landscape scale, receiving lands have the least environmental value and, therefore, suitable or most appropriate areas to receive density that may be transferred from these sending lands. Again, so these are these areas here, so we have four of them. So the four receiving areas are labeled on the map, and they're going to be very relevant when we're discussing the proposed amendments. Agricultural uses within these areas have been expanded and density increased to one dwelling unit per acre for parcels 40 acres in size or larger. So there are three development scenarios on receiving lands. You can have your baseline conditions, and that's one dwelling unit per five acres. You can participate in the TDR program at one dwelling unit per acre via TDR credits, and a mixed-use development called a rural village. So the rural village can be developed in each one of these four receiving areas. So, again, these areas here. The villages must be a mixed-use development. Rural villages development allows for the highest density, roughly -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Excuse me. MS. MOSCA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: If you would, the technical folks -- yes, I haven't been able to see it. So if our speaker is, you know, referencing her presentation, if you could please have it up at that time. Thank you. MS. MOSCA: Okay. I'm not clear what he's -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner, are you able to see what's on the screen? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, I was, and then for the last 30 seconds or one minute I wasn't just because they just had it -- I got to see all of my fellow commissioners' shiny faces, and then as soon as I started speaking, someone switched it to the view of the presentation. So that's all. If you could just make sure, if our speaker's referencing their presentation, just make sure it's on the screen so I can see it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. MOSCA: Okay. Let me just go back over the density for the rural village. So the rural village development allows for the highest density. That's two to three dwelling units per acre and various intensity of uses allowing a full range of commercial, industrial, and business uses. May 20, 2021 Page 7 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) For owners of receiving lands that choose to participate in the Transfer of Development Rights program, here is a sample TDR redemption calculation on a 40-acre receiving lands parcel and a 1,500-acre rural village. Thirty-two TDRs would be needed to develop a 40 -- I'm sorry -- 40 residential units on a 40-acre parcel. A maximum -- and you can look at the math. The maximum of 2,700 TDRs would be required to develop a 1,500-acre rural village. So there's going to be no difference. You'll see the two -- sorry. You'll see the two DUs per acre and the three DUs per acre. So there's no difference in those calculations for TDRs because if you're a rural village, there's a density bonus that's granted for each TDR that's acquired to achieve the minimum density of two dwelling units per acre. So, really, you get the third dwelling unit as a freebie. So let's talk a little bit about neutral lands, the hatched areas. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I don't know if it's just me, but I did not -- I understood the first half of that slide, but I didn't understand the bottom portion. I understand there was a way to get the third unit per acre, but I didn't catch the jump from the 40-acre example down to the 1,500-acre example. So the 40-acre example is just showing that right now they could do eight if they didn't participate, because that's their base density? MS. MOSCA: Right. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And then if they used the credits, they could go up to 40 units on those 40 acres, one per acre? MS. MOSCA: Right. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: But if you have the same -- if you want to do a bigger project, that's how the density increases. MS. MOSCA: Through the rural village, correct. And so it's the same calculation. It's just at a higher rate and a higher density. So you'd still have -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Is that -- is that density, then, for all 1,500 acres you're able to build three homes? MS. MOSCA: Three dwelling units per acre, so 4,500 dwelling units. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Homes, okay. MS. MOSCA: Okay. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes, thank you. MS. MOSCA: You're welcome. Next, we'll talk about the neutral lands. So from an environmental perspective at the landscape scale, again, the neutral lands have native vegetation habitat for listed species but do not have the same value as sending lands. Neutral lands are what we call neutral to the TDR program. Currently, TDR credits cannot be sent or received. Density is allowed at one unit per five acre, and the permitted and conditional uses of the agricultural zoning district remain unchanged. So now we're going to switch over to the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District amendments, or the acronym RFMUD. So in 2015, the Board directed staff to conduct a restudy of four program areas of which the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District is one. The Board appointed a citizen committee to have a high-level oversight of the restudy process. The Board identified the four listed objectives for the restudy, and these are addressed: Complementary land uses, economic vitality, transportation mobility, and environmental stewardship. The restudy included community outreach. It included a website and workshops within the community. The restudy process culminated with staff preparing a white paper that included a summary of public comments and a summary of recommendations from both the staff and the public. The white paper was presented to the Board, and the Board of County Commissioners gave staff direction to proceed with certain amendments. These are the amendments that are in your resolution, Exhibit A, with some exceptions, and we'll go over those later. May 20, 2021 Page 8 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) So for the sending lands, some of the most significant amendments include providing additional TDR credits to sending lands owners, replacing early-entry bonus with two base credits, allowing sending lands owners to participate in program changes if the land has not yet been conveyed, provide conveyance of land to a not-for-profit or land trust by board approval, provide clustering provision for large sending land parcels, and implement the Belle Meade hydrologic enhancement overlay, and this is a comprehensive watershed improvement plan program. So some of the most significant amendments for the receiving lands was to eliminate development standard requirements in the rural village for research and technology parks; providing TDRs for existing agricultural uses and preservation; providing new mixed-use standards for rural villages, and this is similar to the Rural Lands Stewardship Area standards; require all projects greater than or equal to 300 acres utilize rural village provisions to incentivize rural village development; provide greater opportunities for affordable housing projects at higher densities; and the opportunity to include commercial component to the project; and, finally, incentivizing employment centers outside rural villages by allowing business industrial uses identified as Florida qualified target industries. And you probably remember that from the Rural Lands Stewardship Area. These are your manufacturing, trade, finance and insurance, and some of those, and corporate headquarters. For neutral lands, currently owners cannot participate in the TDR program. This amendment would allow participation for existing agriculture and conservation uses. Clustering would also be allowed by this amendment without an acreage threshold. Currently it's 40 acres. For urban designated lands, the amendments would eliminate the requirement to use TDRs for infill properties, and that's a provision within the Future Land Use Element; eliminate the requirement for sending lands' TDRs for development of those properties to be located within one mile of the urban area; and then increase residential density in the urban fringe and require TDRs to be used to increase density through a Growth Management Plan amendment. Rural Fringe Mixed-Use amendments that were not proposed by staff, increase density from one dwelling unit per two dwelling unit per acre outside rural villages and all receiving areas. So if you remember, there were four receiving areas. The original proposal or direction was to provide two dwelling units per acre within all of those receiving areas outside of rural villages, and we'll discuss that further as we go along. Another one was to increase rural village density. Staff recommended that the density in the rural villages remain at two to three dwelling units per acre, and this will allow for additional study within the Belle Meade and the North Belle Meade areas where we'll see the majority of growth in the future. Eliminate the size of the rural village; staff recommended retaining the existing size of these villages for further study. And the elimination of the greenbelt; so staff recommended reducing the greenbelt to maintain the transition of uses and maintain the rural character of the area. So now we'll shift to supply and demand of TDRs based on the proposed amendments. Now, this is one scenario. I mean, there's multiple scenarios based on participation. So in the north receiving area -- let me see if I can -- this area here, this currently is the site of the Immokalee Road Rural Village. That came before you-all. If adopted, it will encompass the entirety of the privately owned receiving areas, so all of -- I'm losing my mouse here -- all of these areas. This area now outside of this sending area just north and south, those are now owned by the state, and so that color on the map will be changing. For the northwest receiving area, this area within here, staff believes it's unlikely that a rural village will be developed based on ownership patterns and existing development. So for a rural village, no TDRs will be counted in that scenario. Now, for nonrural village development, the assumptions are based on the white paper, that there's possibly 60 percent of the landowners would participate, and, again, this could be higher or May 20, 2021 Page 9 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) lower. So let's talk a little bit about the North Belle Meade area in here. This is the receiving area in the North Belle Meade area, and this is north of I-75. And then this is the Belle Meade area south that abuts Tamiami Trail East. The North Belle Meade area in here, the assumption is that one rural village will be developed at the maximum size of 1,500 acres, so that would be up to 4,500 dwelling units, and 2,700 TDRs would be needed for that. For the Belle Meade area the assumption is that the rural village will be developed at the maximum size of 2,500 acres, right in through here, and up to 7,500 dwelling units and 4,500 TDRs would be needed to entitle development. So for nonrural village development -- that's the development outside of the rural villages -- the assumption, once again, for this scenario was based on 60 percent of the landowners participating, and we retained the 40-acre threshold. And so the north would be roughly 1,103 dwelling units, and the south would be approximately 2,514 units. So the total -- based on this particular scenario, there would be a total of 20,530 dwelling units in all of these areas and possibly 11,139 TDRs to entitle that development. Shifting to the supply side. The existing sending lands database that's maintained by staff at the county was used to determine the supply. The participation rate of plus or minus 50 percent was applied to the total possible TDRs. That was for the base, the early entry, environmental restoration, and maintenance and conveyance TDR bonus credits, and these are, again, consistent with the assumptions in the white paper. The total yields approximately 6,278 TDRs based on that applied assumption. And, again, this could be higher or lower depending on the participation rate. Now we want to look at supply of new credits through these abatements. So the new supply is based on the proposed amendments, and they include the Belle Meade flowway TDR bonus credit, and this is for the Belle Meade area. This is south of I-75 for that Belle Meade hydraulic enhancement overlay, and we'll discuss that further as well. And we assumed 100 percent participation or 560 new TDRs coming online. So the next one is sending lands existing agricultural TDR bonus. We assumed 80 percent in the north sending lands where there -- excuse me -- where there are existing groves, 30 percent in the North Belle Meade and Belle Meade areas where there's a limited amount of lands in agricultural use. So this is the calculation here, so that would be roughly 446 new TDRs coming online from an estimated 1,407. The neutral lands existing agricultural TDR bonus, staff assumed 10 percent utilization, and that would come online at approximately 126 TDRs. So you see that staff was very conservative going through these additional TDR credits. And then the final one is the receiving lands existing agricultural TDR credit. Staff assumed 50 percent of the 6L Farms, and that's on the Belle Meade side and that -- again, that area is located at Tamiami Trail East. So we're looking at the total supply, then, of 8,021 TDRs, and the TDR potential demand of 11,139 TDRs. So the estimated deficit, again, based on this scenario would be roughly 3,000 TDRs. I know that's a lot of information; we can discuss that further if you'd like. So the next area we'd like to talk about is the North Belle Meade or NBM and the Belle Meade areas. Again, north of I-75 is the North Belle Meade. South of 75 is the Belle Meade area. So staff mentioned early in the presentation that we're not recommending amendments to be applicable to the North Belle Meade and Belle Meade areas due primarily to infrastructure concerns. Existing development is and has been on Immokalee Road where infrastructure is available or planned. The greatest future development demand will be in the North Belle Meade and Belle Meade receiving areas. May 20, 2021 Page 10 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) Again, this map identifies the two areas, so here's the Belle Meade and North Belle Meade areas. So I believe, Eric Fey is here. Eric Fey from the utility staff will talk about water and sewer availability, followed by Michael Sawyer who will talk about the transportation network that's available in the North Belle Meade and Belle Meade areas. MR. FEY: Thank you, Michele. For the record Eric Fey, principal project manager, Public Utilities. The slide on screen here presents an overview of the RFMUD along with our existing treatment plant and major structure facilities within the water/sewer district. The table represents the potable water and waste wastewater demands, respectively, for each of the four receiving areas. Underneath those demands -- and that is -- by the way, those numbers are the additional demand from what exists today, not the totals. The percentages, on the other hand, underneath those demands are the impacts of the staff-proposed amendments on those demand forecasts. As you can see, with the northwest receiving area being the only one with the density increase, we're looking -- using the assumptions beneath the table, and some of the assumptions Michele stated earlier in her presentation, we're anticipating a 10 percent impact to that receiving area overall, which would be a 35 percent increase in forecasted demand. And some of those assumptions, as she stated, include a 60 percent participation rate. And I think she identified 788 eligible acreage -- acres within receiving area. I want to just go ahead and discuss briefly how we intend to serve these various receiving areas. As you know, the north receiving area is Immokalee Road Rural Village. We are already in the process of extending services, including potable water, wastewater, and irrigation quality water services to that anticipated village. There are existing mains already along 39th Avenue Northeast, and we do anticipate extending new mains up Immokalee Road to their entrance. The next receiving area, the northwest receiving area, is, you know, partially developed today, and the existing developments all receive service from large transmission mains that we extended along Immokalee Road somewhere around 2005, and those mains are of adequate size to serve the increased density in the northwest receiving area. The North Belle Meade receiving area, as you can see from the yellow arrow, that's the original route that was anticipated to extend water and wastewater services to North Belle Meade. In 2003 the Board passed a resolution expanding the water/sewer district to serve all of the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District, and that was the anticipated route. Unfortunately, we do not have a force main along Collier Boulevard. So it would be necessary, if we take that route, to extend wastewater services down to the Golden Gate wastewater treatment plant. Because of that, another alternative that we would prefer is to extend services along Wilson Boulevard. As I'm sure you're aware, that roadway is anticipated for widening and improvement in the Long-Range Transportation Plan, I believe, in the CIP. Trinity Scott could speak to that. But when that road is expanded, we'll look at the possibility of extending mains along with that roadway project. The last receiving area is the Belle Meade in the south part of the water/sewer district. We presently have a 40-acre site on Manatee Road that was contemplated for the southeast regional water treatment plant, and new mains would be extended down Tamiami Trail to serve the Belle Meade receiving area. We're also in the process now of doing a real estate search for a future southeast regional water reclamation facility. Based on our master planning efforts, we're not the sure that those are the best alternatives, but, you know, we will serve the Belle Meade area either with those new plants or with our existing plants and extending or expanding our transmission mains accordingly when Six L's Farm starts to develop in the next 10 to 20 years. May 20, 2021 Page 11 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) So that concludes my presentation. Any questions for Utilities before I walk away? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah. Are you providing service to the rural fringe areas by bringing the water and wastewater back into the main system, or are you using any of the new facilities on Oil Well? MR. FEY: Not on Oil Well, but the Immokalee Road Rural Village will be served by the new northeast utility facilities. The other receiving areas, northwest and North Belle Meade, you know, those would be served from our existing plants with -- in the case of the northwest, existing pipelines. In the case of North Belle Meade, we'd have to extend new pipelines from our existing facilities. And the Belle Meade area's a bit of a toss-up. You know, we have contemplated new facilities in the southeast part of our service area to serve that future development. That's not a certainty. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Eric, are you confident that, from the standpoint of water and reclaimed water, that the infrastructure will be available, that it will not be an issue to serve these areas, these receiving areas? MR. FEY: It will not be an issue. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. On your North Belle Meade, you showed a possible route, and then you showed an alternative route which you preferred, which was an expanded Wilson Boulevard. Where is that -- it just showed an arrow. It ended at Immokalee Road. Where is it actually ending up? MR. FEY: Like I mentioned for the northwest receiving area, we've got large-diameter transmission mains, including a 36-inch water main and a 16-inch water main that were designed to serve all of the northeast service area in combination with the northeast utility facilities, so there's plenty of capacity in the northeast to provide service to North Belle Meade. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. So you're hooking up to the northeast going up Wilson -- MR. FEY: At Immokalee Road, correct. If we go that route instead of going west, yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. MR. FEY: Thank you. Michele is just suggesting that I clarify the timing. You know, we're doing our master planning effort right now. It should be done next month, and when we provide the 2021 AUIR, that master plan will be an attachment, and we'll address timing of those improvements in the master plan. So I just wanted to clarify that for the record. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Fey, you may not know, because it's not really directly in your area, but what about electrical service out there? MR. FEY: Yeah, I can't speak to that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'll ask Ms. Mosca. Thank you. Mr. Sawyer. MR. SAWYER: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Mike Sawyer, Transportation Planning. In front of you, you see the 2045 Long-Range Transportation Plan. Just as a refresher -- and you've heard this a number of times more recently -- but the MPO bases the future population growth on the median population estimate. That population is distributed around the county based on the county's interactive growth model. And we do understand that the world doesn't end in 2045. That's one of Trinity's lines. But that is how far out we work with our transportation plan. The model runs that are used, those are what are reviewed, and that is what we use to come May 20, 2021 Page 12 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) up with our cost feasible plans which, again, is what you've got in front of you, and that is what is adopted by the MPO board and incorporated into the county's planning process. We can go over the specifics as far as potential roadway improvements that would be feeding into the North Belle Meade as well as the Belle Meade areas that we've been talking about. It is our -- it is Transportation Planning's position that any further addition of density should be thoroughly studied to determine the impacts to the transportation network and what additional facilities might be necessary as well as a proper mix use -- proper mix of uses that will support a maximum internal capture and shorter trip lengths. What that's basically trying to say is that we -- any additional density that we would be looking at in, again, the North Belle Meade as well as the Belle Meade area really needs to be looked at from a transportation standpoint, the infrastructure. If we properly plan it so that we have requirements that have implications where we have fewer trips out onto our road networks, in other words, we try and capture as much of those internal trips as we possibly can, the better we're going to be. COMMISSIONER FRY: By that you mean having sufficient commercial services in those areas so the people don't have to leave the area? MR. SAWYER: Absolutely, yes. I do have information as far as specific links that we could possibly talk to. I don't know how far you want to get into that. Mostly what we're talking about as far as servicing these two areas is going to be the extension of Wilson. And I can give you time frames if you really want those. They are within the 2045. We also have Benfield/Wilson, which would be serving further south into the Belle Meade area. And, again, I've got time frames on those. The other issue is certainly 41. And there are plans within the 2045 from FDOT to make improvements in a stretch that would be right in front of the Belle Meade area. But, certainly, we would want, if we're looking at additional densities, to certainly bring in -- FDOT into those discussions. Because right now their plans are just like ours. They're looking at the current densities that have been proposed previously. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: What is FDOT -- what do they have in mind in that section of 41? Expanding it? MR. SAWYER: It would be expanding from two lanes to four. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. MR. SAWYER: Similar to what they've already done further north and west. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. That was it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. SAWYER: That's all I've got. I believe Michele is next. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Sawyer. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Can I ask a quick question? Maybe it's for ourselves. I assume we have a fiscal-neutrality requirement on the receiving areas as well? CHAIRMAN FRYER: In the RFMUD materials, they're there. COMMISSIONER SHEA: It's the same, yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I would also tag onto that, if I may. There are provisions elsewhere in the Growth Management Plan calling for self-sufficiency, which points to the need to look at and to try to regulate the nature of the commercial uses being deployed within developments like these. What is your take on the importance of us considering self-sufficiency and the particular commercial uses in developments -- villages and other developments? MR. SAWYER: From a transportation standpoint, as many trips as we can contain within individual developments is a direction that we would want to go, because that means we don't have May 20, 2021 Page 13 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) to make as many or as large of improvements into our existing facilities. We may be able to do additional lanes on existing segments on existing corridors instead of looking at new corridors, for instance. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. SAWYER: I apologize. Michele also wanted me to point out that Benfield is not fully funded at this point, even in the 2045. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But this gets back to the same issue we have every time something comes up. So you're planning for growth, and you're building it into our capital budget. So the only way you can prove fiscal neutrality -- we've already paid for it and built it into our budget. So if our impact fees cover the costs, I guess that's the only way that it's fiscally neutral. It just gets very complicated, because we're doing all the planning right now for this growth, and now they're going to come in as individual developments, and we have to look at them as to whether they're fiscally neutral or not, but yet we've already put in the budget the highway system to support them. It's confusing to me as a commissioner as to how you get to fiscal neutrality when we're planning for that growth and the residents are paying that money now. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Impact fees are certainly an important part of that, but so is property taxes, gas taxes, and other user fees. They never really quite add up, though. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mike, can you show us on that, I'll call it small and, on my monitor, blurry map, Benfield. Is it Benfield/Wilson? Is it a hyphenated name that's anticipated? MR. SAWYER: I believe that's current nomenclature that we're using, yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Where that would actually -- MR. SAWYER: We're kind of just calling it Benfield currently. That would be this link through here. That is the portion that is projected as far as being funded, 2045. It would also extend further south basically along that line right there. COMMISSIONER FRY: To serve Belle Meade? MR. SAWYER: It is serving future growth, yes, at the estimates that we currently have, yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any questions for Mr. Sawyer? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, thank you. MR. SAWYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Mosca, could I begin by asking you the same question I asked of Mr. Fey. Florida Power & Light, are they in the process of getting electricity out there, or is it already there? MS. MOSCA: Unfortunately, I don't know the answer to that, but we could get you the answer, and we could send an e-mail. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MS. MOSCA: I don't know the status. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. That's a private undertaking. It's not part of the Public Utilities, but it's certainly very important in the totality of infrastructure that we would be providing to new occupants. MS. MOSCA: Sure. I'll find that out for you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. MOSCA: Sure. So the next area I'd like to talk about, and I'll have Liz Goslin from stormwater staff just come up and tell you about this exciting project that's just south of I-75. Again, I've mentioned it earlier. It's the Belle Meade hydrologic enhancement overlay and that, May 20, 2021 Page 14 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) again, has that TDR credit attached to it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. French? MR. FRENCH: Commissioners, good morning. Jamie French. I'm your deputy department head for Growth Management. Very quickly, on your electric utility, that service territory is defined and decided by the Florida Public Service Commission. The area's currently under Florida Power & Light, but you do have a privately owned utility that acts as a co-op. That's Lee County Electric Co-op. That area -- and I just looked at the map from the Florida Public Service Commission. I believe the area's going to be served by LCEC on that one, but that is defined by the Florida Public Service Commission. It's not done on a local government level. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Recognizing that we don't have control over that, should we, nonetheless, be making our decisions about new growth based upon when these other entities can come forward with the resources that we need? MR. KLATZKOW: No. No. MR. FRENCH: Right. There's statutory language that defines that, sir. MR. KLATZKOW: We've got criteria. That's the criteria that the Planning Commission weighs. If the state elects not to provide electricity, which is what the southerner states, quite frankly, and how the state killed the southerner states, that's a state issue, not ours. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. MS. GOSLIN: Good morning. For the record, Liz Goslin with Stormwater Management. So the comprehensive and watershed improvement plan is a very large project that proposes enhancements of hydraulic conditions to the natural areas immediately east of Naples between U.S. 41 and I-75. This project will be restoring natural flows to rehydrate approximately 9,000 acres in the Picayune Strand Forest area. Again, the project will provide an opportunity to balance freshwater flows to Naples Bay and Rookery Bay. Freshwater flows will be reduced in Naples Bay, which will provide additional water quality. The project will increase freshwater flows into Rookery Bay, which will help to rehydrate those habitats. So the overall project, in summary, it will withdraw water from the Golden Gate Main Canal and then discharge it into I-75 canal and then picking it up again from I-75 and making it flow south through the green area on the screen. Eventually, after some infiltration and evaporation losses, the remaining flow will keep flowing south through some residential communities and eventually reaching the Rookery Bay at the very south of the -- of the project -- of the project area. That's a very general summary of the project. If you have questions about this project, I can answer them. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah, I'm confused. Technically, where's the water coming from, say, for the I-75 pump station? I didn't quite get where you're pulling water from, and then you're pumping it down the hydraulic area -- hydrologic area. MS. GOSLIN: On the little -- on the map you have a northern pump. Do you see it on the map? You have a northern pump station. So we will have a pump station there that will pump water from the Golden Gate Canal, and then we're going to dump it into I-75 and then picking it up again south of I-75, making it flow south. We'll have another pump station just south of I-75. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So you're moving it from one canal over into the hydrologic -- MS. GOSLIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. May 20, 2021 Page 15 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) COMMISSIONER FRY: Is that all within the -- is the yellow boundary on the outside of that, is that generally the Belle Meade area, or is -- is this just -- this is a part of the Belle Meade -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- receiving area. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Right here. MS. GOSLIN: Yes. I'm assuming, yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is the green area, is that now -- is it saw grass? Is it -- what is it? Is it Everglades? MS. GOSLIN: That's the Picayune Strand Forest. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. MS. GOSLIN: And about 9,000 acres of that forest will be rehydrated with this project. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. It's exciting. Thank you. MS. GOSLIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But there will be homes in the areas, too, right? MS. GOSLIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: There are homes in those areas. They're just at a very low density. MS. GOSLIN: Right. Yes, and that's why the project is asking to provide one TDR bonus for those affected property owners so they can have some balance. Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. GOSLIN: Thank you. MS. MOSCA: Okay. Michele Mosca, again, for the record. So now we want to get into talking about some of the -- before we get into the public comment, talk about some of the outstanding issues that we've heard. We've talked to the development community. We've talked to sending lands owners. Some of the concerns that keep coming up as part of the rural fringe program. So, again, there's three outstanding issues, and staff believes it requires further evaluation and study. And this would also include the study of the TDR credit analysis as well, because there's that fine balance. So you always want more demand than you do the supply. So these include sending lands restoration and maintenance credit, the conveyance TDR credit, and a mechanism in which to connect the buyers and sellers. So those sellers of the sending lands, we're trying to compensate them for the loss of uses and intensity on their property. So when the base, early entry, and TDR credits are severed, the property is protected from development but doesn't result in the management of the property, such as maintaining the property free of exotics. The restoration and maintenance credit provides for a plan to restore these properties; however, at times it's expensive and not financially feasible for the one TDR credit per the five acres. So those landowners that have a five-acre piece. Additionally -- and this is a big one -- the long-term maintenance is at issue if the property is not conveyed to an entity to manage that property long term. So the North Belle Meade area, again, that area north of I-75, there's very limited entities accepting properties. So there have been suggestions to increase restoration TDRs, those are the restoration maintenance TDRs, from two to even three credits per five acres. But staff believes, again, this will require further study on the credit system and the discussion of long-term maintenance of these properties. The third issue is connecting the buyers and sellers of these TDRs. Currently, the county maintains a buyers and sellers list, and we roughly have maybe 4- to 500 TDRs available on that list now. We need to adjust that for changes in the last year or so. And the community has suggested a single entity be responsible for those transactions such as a Transfer of Development Rights bank, and many of you may have heard of that; however, the May 20, 2021 Page 16 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) Board did not direct staff to pursue that as an option. So we believe that we need further study and discussion on that topic. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Within that time frame -- and it's undoubtedly going to take some time -- there will be applications filed for development, and once they're filed, presumably, the developer would have a vested right in being able to proceed under the current rules rather than what might be more restrictive. Would you indicate what, if anything, you know about the future timeline and whether these studies could come forward before rights get vested in the more relaxed rules. MS. MOSCA: Well, what we've done by, you know, retaining the existing conditions for the North Belle Meade and Belle Meade, again, those are the areas we're going to see the greatest development possible. What we've done as part of these amendments is to suggest that we initiate a study within two years. So we're really looking at a comprehensive approach to planning these areas so we can address infrastructure, we can address the mix of uses, and that includes the capture rate that Michael talked about. So we want it to be sustainable. We want it to be, like -- I know you all don't maybe perhaps like the term "smart growth," but you want to offer multiple modes of transportation. We want to look at the possibility of increasing residential density, for example, what was proposed as part of these amendments, four to seven dwelling units per acre. And it may be, in fact, doable, but we would really rather include all the stakeholders in that process and plan it correctly. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I'm one who likes the term "smart growth." Of course, I have my own definition of it, as we're all entitled to. And it seems to me that the restudy recommendation of four to seven would have been optimal. And I understand staff's response that we don't have the infrastructure yet to serve that kind of density. I just -- I'm thinking out loud here. Maybe it's a legal question. Is there some way to lay down a zoning in progress so that -- so that if the rules are changed after someone files an application they would be subject to those new rules? MR. KLATZKOW: No. Unless you're expanding their development rights. It's like the conversation we had at the last meeting where Mr. Yovanovich is asking to be excluded from this but allowed to do that. If you want vested rights, you can have vested rights, and they're determined at the time of the application. But afterwards it's -- unless you're expanding developmental rights, no, it's -- you can't limit people. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, it's a conundrum. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, it's an economic investment. I mean, I make an investment in a parcel of land based on the developmental rights. The government can't come in and then just, like, strip me of my benefit of that investment. That's what Bert Harris is all about. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Understood completely. It's just a point of frustration for me, and I think the solution is for our already overburdened staff to work even harder to get this study completed so that we can put the new rules in place with respect to smart growth, and in this case density, in time to catch all the new developments that are going to come in. Just an expression of hope. Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Michele, it's, I think, a good time to take this to a point of being less esoteric to being a real-life example. So let's say that I'm a -- first of all, I guess in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area there are eight main property owners that own a lot of that land. What is the makeup of the ownership of the sending lands in the RFMUD? Is it a small group of people, or is it a very large diverse group of people? MS. MOSCA: It's actually a very large group of people. A lot of the property owners have five acres, less than five acres, 10 acres, and then you have your trusts that have multiple five-acre parcels. So there's many, many, many more property owners in the sending lands. And May 20, 2021 Page 17 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) I thought I had that number for you as an estimate, but I don't have it in front of me; whereas, the Rural Lands Stewardship Area has few. COMMISSIONER FRY: So you're talking about a lot of individual decisions by property owners to participate in this program. So we started with an example of a 40-acre parcel that generated 32 TDR credits. So maybe a -- maybe a more realistic example is a five-acre parcel -- you said there are a lot of those -- that's owned by one person. So they have the opportunity to earn four TDR credits. So I want to just go through what this actually looks likes in real life. So I have a piece of land. I haven't built on it, but it's got preservation value, so we want to preserve it, and I'm willing not to build on it. So I do the -- I can earn a base credit. I can earn a credit for early entry currently. MS. MOSCA: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: Or it will be two in the future -- MS. MOSCA: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- for base credits. Then I have to create a plan to restore it if I have nonnative vegetation on it and to maintain it, and then I get another credit for that. And then if I convey, which means -- I guess I want to know exactly what that means. I'm going to say, okay, Collier County or somebody else is going to take care of it into perpetuity. So I really have no more use of the land. Do I even own the land anymore? MS. MOSCA: If you convey it, no, you don't own it. COMMISSIONER FRY: You're actually giving up ownership of the land? MS. MOSCA: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: So I've got these four credits. I have invested some money for a maintenance and restoration plan, I would assume, and I'm going to sell these for 15- to $18,000 each? Is that the -- is that the current -- MS. MOSCA: Whatever the market rate is, the first -- again, the base credit right now is 25,000, but part of these amendments, the proposal has been to eliminate that, and that's in the Land Development Code only. It does not appear in the Growth Management Plan. So there is that proposal currently to eliminate that base credit cost. COMMISSIONER FRY: So it becomes market rate? MS. MOSCA: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: Market rate on that? MS. MOSCA: Yes. I do want to make one point of clarification. So, for example, if you have the restoration and maintenance credit that you want to achieve, let's say you're in the Belle Meade area south of I-75. The state is, in fact, purchasing or seeking properties. So the state already has a restoration and maintenance plan. So what I've been told is that the individual would not have to create that restoration and maintenance plan. That would go under the state plan, and they would convey that property to the state. So it really depends on the area. The biggest challenge, what I've been told, is the North Belle Meade area, those areas north of I-75, and the limitation on the number of entities accepting conveyance. So that was what I said in the last slide, some of those challenges with the program. So looking at the Belle Meade area, in the North Belle Meade area as a whole, how do we address those? And that's something we really need to target and process and get through and understand how we can help that five-acre-parcel owner get those benefits. That's what the program's about. COMMISSIONER FRY: So we had -- I've been here two-and-a-half years, I think, and we've had one RFMUD development come through where a developer had to go out and buy TDRs for -- and I can't remember the name of the development, but it was Immokalee. MS. MOSCA: Ventana? May 20, 2021 Page 18 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) COMMISSIONER FRY: Ventana Pointe. And I remember in speaking with him that it was an arduous process to find and buy those credits. And that was, as I understood, the only time we actually had a different entity that was buying the credits and supplying the credits; that the other developments in the RFMUD had all been the same property owner, had the sending land and had the receiving land, and they just -- so it was an easy transfer. Do we have evidence that this program has actually worked to date or is workable in its current form or even the modified form? MS. MOSCA: We do. I mean, I don't have the map in front of me -- and I can provide that to you all -- but there have been transfer of smaller properties to other areas along Immokalee Road. I'm trying to think of some of the names. Ray, maybe you can help me out. They're just escaping me. Do you recall? Bent Creek, right. So some of those properties in that area have utilized TDRs. So it -- I mean, to say -- I mean, it is working. A TDR program takes a long period of time. This is not something that happens overnight. COMMISSIONER FRY: I believe with Ventana Pointe we had to actually make some concessions in terms of density to make it work for the developer in that case. So as a property owner that had five acres, I'm really looking at more or less selling that property for whatever I can get for four TDR credits. Is that -- MS. MOSCA: You can do that, or you can retain the property and have the existing -- let's say you have an agricultural use on the property, so you can do that as well. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. MS. MOSCA: But the objective really is to compensate those sending lands owners. So the receiving lands owners are receiving that benefit of increased density. So I mean, really, we need to target those sending lands owners and connecting those buyers -- I mean, those sellers with the buyers in the receiving land, and that's another issue that I mentioned identified that we really need to kind of target as one of our objectives during that additional study. COMMISSIONER FRY: But you're here today saying -- you're recommending that we approve these current amendments while saying that there are areas that need to be addressed with further study, correct? MS. MOSCA: Yes, that's correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you. MR. KLATZKOW: And there is a base level of development, right? MS. MOSCA: That's correct. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. So this is just like RLSA. If the program works, and we're trying to make it work, mazel tov. If the program doesn't work, you still have the base density for people to develop. In the RLSA you've got large property owners, so it's much more easier to accumulate the different rights than it is here where you have five-acre, five-acre, five-acre, five-acre. The worst that happens is the program fails, which is okay because you've still get the base density that hasn't been changed. COMMISSIONER FRY: Right. But it's got to make economical sense for the property owner that has a five-acre parcel. MR. KLATZKOW: And it may not. It may not. I mean, we're going through condemnation proceedings along the VBR corridor and, you know, acreage is going in excess of $100,000 an acre. So if that starts getting there, you know, and these acreages start getting towards, like, a half a million dollars for five acres down the line, I don't know how you separate. COMMISSIONER FRY: Yeah, 100,000 in TDR credits is not going to -- MR. KLATZKOW: It's not going to happen. It's just a question of economics. But that's okay. I mean, we do have the base density. We're just trying to create a smart growth alternative for the area that may not work because of just the ownership pattern. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you. May 20, 2021 Page 19 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) MS. MOSCA: So Anita placed the spaghetti map strap -- map -- that's a tough one to say. So here are all of the TDR severances that have entitled. So here are your severances here and here that have been entitled development, right. They're along Immokalee Road. So you can see that the program is working. People are severing their TDRs. So I just want to provide that additional information. COMMISSIONER FRY: It's a bit of a miscellaneous assortment of properties that are dispersed all over the place that are being -- their credits are being aggregated into these receiving lands. MS. MOSCA: True. Yeah. What I've noticed just from the short time that I've been working on this program is that there are a lot of land trusts out there that seem to be doing a lot of the transactions. Again, that's why I wanted to bring to the forefront that there is that need to address those property owners that have just the five acres. So they don't hold, you know, hundreds and hundreds of acres. So I just wanted to mention that as well. COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, what is the general nature of these land trusts that you're referring to? Tell me how they come about and who owns them. MS. MOSCA: We have a database of all of the sending lands properties. We have a couple of land trusts that own, you know, five-acre parcels, 10-acre parcels, and so forth. And what they do is they either sever the TDRs themselves, or they sell the property, such in the case of Ventana. That was through a trust, and that trust owns many parcels throughout the sending lands in the North Belle Meade area, and that's how Ventana Pointe was able to acquire the TDRs to entitle their development. COMMISSIONER FRY: So these are business ventures where they are acquiring properties with the intention of severing rights and selling the TDRs? MS. MOSCA: Well, I think some of the trusts have owned the properties for a long period of time, so I can't say that is necessarily true. I just don't know. COMMISSIONER FRY: A combination of the value of the land plus severing TDRs when strategically profitable for them. MS. MOSCA: Sure. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you. MS. MOSCA: So what I'd like to address now are the stakeholder comments. And I know we have a couple members of the public that will likely want to discuss these as well. We had a two-week period after staff prepared these amendments, sent them out for review by the stakeholders, and they provided us some comments. Some of these comments include increasing -- and I mentioned this earlier, increasing TDRs for restoration and maintenance. And, again, the concern from staff would be, sure, we could increase those TDRs, two TDRs, three TDRs, four TDRs per five acres. The property owner's required to move -- let's say, remove the exotics, okay. So they achieve that level, and then what happens a year from now? Two years from now? Sometimes those exotics -- I mean, they have a restoration maintenance plan. They have to come in and, you know, address the removal and so forth. But from a staff perspective, we're really looking at the long-term maintenance, and if we just throw out three TDRs for restoration, we really need to make sure we have the correct balance in the TDR system. Another one is to increase density outside of rural villages from one unit to two units per acre. So where we have the infrastructure is in the north part of the county. So in the north receiving area and the northwest receiving area, we have the infrastructure. So we have suggested going ahead and allowing the two dwelling units per acre outside of those rural villages. And there's not a lot of development that can occur in here. So from a staff perspective, transportation, utilities, and so forth, it's something that is, in fact, doable. But then we look down here in the Belle Meade area, in the North Belle Meade, we don't have the infrastructure; we just don't. So to increase to two dwelling units per acre, that May 20, 2021 Page 20 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) potentially could impact the infrastructure. And we don't want to put that on the books until we fully study those two areas. Then another was expand affordable housing opportunities to neutral lands. We all like affordable housing, but the intent was never to increase residential density within the neutral lands. So we are proposing an increase in the receiving lands where we feel it's appropriate. So I'll leave it at that. And then provide TDR incentives for public benefit. Certainly, that's something that we can think about, but we do need to address the overall TDR system and make sure we have a balance, and that's supply and demand. And then we had another individual that wanted to expand industrial uses along the East Trail. So right now we have this area right here. It's rural industrial, and it's outside of the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District. And, sure, you know, we're looking at opportunities to increase employment. I spoke with the gentleman that owns property here. I'm not sure exactly what he'd like to do with the property. He did mention outside storage. Now, we've recently gone through -- and I don't know if you-all are familiar with the East Naples Community Development Plan. They're opposed to any new outdoor storage. So we have concerns about expanding this. It might be necessary for the individual to come in with a Comprehensive Plan change so they can identify the types of uses or if, in fact, an expansion in this location of industrial uses is appropriate. We just don't know that at this point. Is there a demand for industrial uses? Probably. But is this the location for that? Okay. And then we also have -- one of the other ones was eliminate TDR usage for increased densities with the Growth Management Plan amendments. So you'll see that in the resolution itself. So in order to create a market for additional TDRs, there's a recommendation to require TDR usage if, in fact, a developer comes in and says, I want to increase residential density. So we could keep that, and we could make exceptions to the rule as projects come in. I mean, that can be done a number of ways. Finally, let's talk about some of the recommendations. So staff is recommending that the Planning Commission forward these amendments to the Board with a recommendation to transmit to the state as provided in the resolution, Exhibit A, adding the Belle Meade hydrologic enhancement map and text to initiate the Belle Meade study within the two-year period, and that's identified on Page 8 of the staff report. And I know, Mr. Chairman, we had some additional discussions. I wasn't sure how -- we're supportive of those recommendations. I wasn't sure if you wanted to go through the resolution itself, or do you want to make those recommendations now, or would you like staff to bring them up? I don't want to put you on the spot. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, thank you. I was prepared to bring them up when we ask our questions, but if staff would prefer to address them proactively, that would be fine with me as well. MS. MOSCA: Okay. I can do that. So we met with Commissioner Fryer. He had an exception to the usage of TDRs for Growth Management Plan amendments to increase residential density. He asked about affordable housing. So within the urban area currently we have the density bonus provision that would allow for increased affordable housing opportunities. So we can make that exception to affordable housing. So if, in effect, a developer wanted to come in and increase that above 12, we would make that exception. And then on Page 22 -- I'm sorry. This is on the resolution. I'm going back and forth. So with the greenbelt, as part of these amendments, there was a recommendation from the public, I believe, to eliminate the greenbelt. What staff did, because we believe that it's necessary to May 20, 2021 Page 21 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) provide that transition, that we would add an averaging, which is -- and we can get to the resolution, which we would ask to put 100 feet in there, and then there was some additional language -- Commissioner Fryer, if you can help me out, there was some language in that same paragraph that was incorrectly struck through, so we need to add that back in. And, again, if you-all want to go to your resolution, or we can go to that afterwards. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. When I have my comments, we'll cover it. MS. MOSCA: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. MOSCA: Sure. So in addition to the proposed Growth Management Plan amendments, staff will also be preparing Land Development Code amendments following the adoption hearings to implement the Growth Management Plan amendments and to improve program processes and procedures. After that, here are our next steps. So these transmittal amendments will be going to the Board in September. They'll be transmitted to the state, and typically that's a 30-day review period. Then you'll get a second look at these amendments. And we're hoping to get those to you by the end of the year, and then the Board of County Commissioner adoption hearings likely at the beginning of next year, and then we'll see a compliance finding, hopefully, by the state. COMMISSIONER FRY: Why so long to go to the county commissioners; four months? MS. MOSCA: Well, we talked about -- there's, obviously, the month off in August. We do have a backlog of planning petitions. So if we can get to them sooner -- there's only one meeting in July and there's no meeting in August. And so we're kind of trying to address the petitions that are in the pipeline now. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. MS. MOSCA: So with that, that completes or concludes my presentation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Who has questions? Comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. I'll go through mine. Overall, I'm quite pleased with this work. I think it's a significantly -- significant improvement over what we have now, and I commend staff for your work. My first question is on Page 3 -- I'm going to use the numbering of the staff report, because my other numbering, I've got Packet Page 2482, but that's a previous packet, because the current packet only goes up to 2208. So on Page 3 -- MS. MOSCA: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Is this Page 3 of the staff report or the resolution? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. And it's Roman IIB, captioned Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District. And this is just a point of clarification. It was answered to my satisfaction on Tuesday, but I wanted to raise it so that we make a public record of it, the reason why the 93,000 acres was reduced to 77- and some change. And if you could just give us a short reply to that, Ms. Mosca, along the lines of what you told me, that would suffice. MS. MOSCA: Happy to. So the original study area was over -- what was it, over 90,000-some-odd acres. There were some areas around, for example, Corkscrew that are not included in the actual district. So it's just the difference of the original study area versus the actual Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District acreage. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Were there some state lands that were -- MS. MOSCA: There are some state lands within there as well, yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. But that's what accounts for the difference in the acreage. MS. MOSCA: Yes. And, you know, Commissioner Fryer, I'm sorry. My numbering is different, so I'm going to sort of struggle through this. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well, I apologize. MS. MOSCA: Nope. That's okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Then my next one is on, I guess it's Page 4, the very next page of May 20, 2021 Page 22 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) the staff report where the language currently says, any Comprehensive Plan amendment to increase residential density within any of the subdistricts in this district shall only provide for that density increase via utilization of the Transfer of Development Rights program. And I think it's your intent to also include the opportunity to increase density through affordable housing. And I just wanted to be sure that we made that clarifying point. And it could be made in a variety of language changes, very simple things, which I'd be happy to suggest one. That's the intent of staff, correct? MS. MOSCA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That affordability also be among the roster of things that would lead to increased density. And a way of -- perhaps the easiest way of accomplishing this is just putting the phrase, except as otherwise provided elsewhere, comma, or elsewhere herein. MS. MOSCA: I just have a clarification. So when you say "except as otherwise provided herein," so there's already the exception for up to 12. Were you proposing -- maybe I misunderstood yesterday -- or Tuesday. Were you proposing to increase affordable housing beyond 12 without the utilization of TDRs? CHAIRMAN FRYER: No. I'm trying to cure what I see as a conflict in the language. MS. MOSCA: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And it could also be addressed -- excuse me. I'm losing my voice. It could also be addressed by adding the expression at the end, "via utilization of the Transfer of Development Rights program or through affordable housing." Maybe that's an easier way; fewer words. MS. MOSCA: I understand your objective. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Does anybody have an objection to that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Hearing none. All right. Then -- and it should be pointed out -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, go ahead, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I would like to see exactly where that's inserted -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- and what the insertion is going to be. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. MS. MOSCA: Is it -- Commissioner Fryer, is it easier to go to the resolution, maybe, where we had the strikethrough and underline? Would that be easier to follow? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, yeah. Let's do it that way. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Where is that in our agenda packet? MS. MOSCA: It should be under the resolution in Exhibit A. Does anyone have the full agenda packet that could provide a number? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Conceptually, Commissioner, it says that -- right now in this discrete section it says, the only way that you can get additional density is through transfer of TDRs, and I want to add "and affordable housing," because the plan provides for that in other provisions, but it is contradictory when it says "the only way." MS. MOSCA: Well, I actually liked your verbiage where you said, except as otherwise provided herein. I think that's clear and succinct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's fine, too. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. That makes sense "except as provided," because then it -- whatever it is that we put in there, we're not limiting that, so that makes sense. MS. MOSCA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. May 20, 2021 Page 23 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) MS. MOSCA: Yeah. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: That's fine. I mean, I don't need to see more. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you, Commissioner. It's 10:28. Let's take a 10-minute -- let's take a 12-minute break to 20 minutes of 11:00, and maybe we can find that citation at that point. Thank you. We're in recess. (A brief recess was had from 10:28 a.m. to 10:40 a.m.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's reconvene, please. And where we were is I was asking questions and so, by your leave, I'll continue doing that. There is a reference -- and this is on Page 22 of the staff material. And it has to do with the deletion of the greenbelt. I, for one, would prefer to see that language remain in there, but I don't know how others feel. MS. MOSCA: Well, what staff has done -- and we've worked with environmental staff, and we think it's reasonable that the greenbelt not be less than 200 feet, averaging 100 feet in width, and then the struck-through language on Page 22 to add that back in. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Does anyone object to that? COMMISSIONER FRY: No, sir. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Which one are we at; the open space environmental protection? CHAIRMAN FRYER: This is E1 on Page 22. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Then I go back. I'm backtracking a little bit. Also at the top of Page 22 in little Arabic B it says, goods and services required, minimum of 53-square-feet gross building area per dwelling unit. I mean, I think quantitatively, that's good. I mentioned self-sufficiency a little while ago. And I'm not sure whether this commission or staff or the BCC would have any appetite for expanding this substantively, but I wanted to raise the point anyway and see what people thought. When we require commercial uses, right now we don't require specific commercial uses or we don't say commercial uses in order to enable the village or town or whatever to be reasonably self-sufficient. And knowing the problems we have on our roads, the concept of self-sufficiency, I think, is important and I, for one, would like to see a reference to some language in Sub B or elsewhere that would require a developer to give some thought -- and I know I've got to be careful because it could be a slippery slope. And I'm not saying that every development should have its own Publix or whatever, but I just think the concept of self-sufficiency is already embedded in other places in this -- in the Growth Management Plan. And I'd like to see some words dedicated to it in this. What do other commissioners think? COMMISSIONER FRY: I guess my question is, the term "self-sufficiency" means different things to different people. So can we give it -- how do we give it some teeth? You're looking for what exactly? CHAIRMAN FRYER: My objective is to get more cars off the street so that people can satisfy their basic commercial needs to a greater degree, not completely, but to a greater degree, within their community. And I don't have exact language to offer, and I recognize the slippery slopes and the ambiguity, but I just thought I would speak out for the concept, maybe not here, maybe not now. But in so many cases, our roads, we are constrained. We can't -- you know, it's impossible -- it would be impossible to widen roads. Eminent domain would be ridiculously expensive. We couldn't do it. So we have to find other ways to get people off the road. And that's where I'm coming from. Yes, ma'am. May 20, 2021 Page 24 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) MS. MOSCA: Commissioner, what I was going to say, if it's a recommendation of this commission, what we could do, as part of the Land Development Code amendments, define that term, and you'll see that again. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, that would be -- that would be quite satisfactory to me. What do others think? Mr. Eastman. MR. EASTMAN: I think your idea is excellent about having more commercial and more business options available so that people don't -- we reduce vehicle miles traveled. I think the use of the term "self-sufficiency" is potentially dangerous. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's already in the Growth Management Plan elsewhere, but I'm not embracing it. MR. EASTMAN: It seems like a tab to pull on for this, like economically viable for people objecting to the development or whatever. And it may be -- it may be better to just allow greater options for commercial and business uses and go that path because, ultimately, your goal is an excellent goal, to reduce the vehicle miles traveled, and when these new developments happen people can get goods and services closer to them is really what you're saying, in essence. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a consensus that we ask staff to consider putting this in the LDC? COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, when Mike Sawyer was up there, he expressed for Belle Meade and North Belle Meade especially that internal capture be maximized for exactly that purpose, because we didn't necessarily have the road infrastructure available. He didn't seem as concerned for the north receiving area and the northwest receiving area. But would the term internal -- "maxing internal capture" or something like that be kind of a little more succinct? He's talking about -- and I guess self-sufficiency, to me, seems to be a rather general term. But I'd like it also to be something that we can really work with in the future and have some teeth. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. Two communities. You have a community. It's the same thing. One -- in the first situation, it's all populated by retired folk. It's easier to keep them there if you provide essential goods and service near by. If that same community is with working people, they've got to commute to work. So here you are planning the same community not knowing who's actually going to buy a house in there, and you will have two completely opposite results depending upon who moves in there. So I really don't know how a plan for 2045 we can figure out how we're going to put in any factor that will affect the commutability of this thing, impact on roads, or anything else. Those are going to have to be measured at the time we get development orders. And, again, it's going to depend upon who's living there, modes of transportation, 2045. I mean, I get 90 percent of my stuff off of Amazon now. I can't remember the last time I went out to a department store. That's changed. It's -- I would caution to put -- be very careful about defining these things at this point in time from a planning perspective. We just don't know what the world's going to be like. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I take your point. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: More deliveries. More warehousing. COMMISSIONER FRY: But you're talking about essential services. You can't plan for whether people will be commuting to work or not, because that depends on who buys. But all people do share certain basic needs for groceries and basic services, which would be a little bit more of a finite list that you might work with. I don't know the answer, but I'm just thinking out loud. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Would it be acceptable to the Planning Commission if we asked staff to think about this and see if there might be language that would accomplish the objective sought without creating unintended consequences? And it may well be that there is no such May 20, 2021 Page 25 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) language. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: You can't force commercial, though. COMMISSIONER FRY: It's market driven. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's market driven. That's it. If nobody's going to support it, it's not going to be there. MR. EASTMAN: But if it were just an option. Greater choices available. MS. MOSCA: Well, staff can look at that. We'll work with Transportation staff, and we can come back to you with something. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I went into this knowing that there were potential pitfalls, so I -- but I wanted to mention it and see what others thought and see whether we couldn't -- MR. KLATZKOW: The key focus is to figure out how many people we want here, right? We're at that early enough stage of development. So how many people do we want populated here, all right, understanding that you've got a base density? And once you figure out how many people are going to be here, we start planning for the infrastructure: The water, the roads, everything else. That's where we are right now. And the focus should be is how many people do we want here, all right, and then we can plan everything else around that. Tom can plan the schools, you know. Eric can plan his water and sewer facilities. So how many people do we want out here? And where we run into problems is that -- and I've seen it in the RLSA -- we keep increasing and increasing the density there, and you can't plan when you do that. It just falls apart because you can only put in so many roads, you can only put in so much infrastructure to begin with, and you come up with plan. How many people do you want? And then stick with it. The commercial will come. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Point taken. Thank you. Anything further, ma'am? MS. MOSCA: No, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Anything -- any further questions from staff? I really do believe that this is an excellent piece of work that you've brought forward, and thank you for that. If staff has presented all it wants to in its initial presentation, it would be time for us to hear from the public, I believe. MS. MOSCA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Do we have any members of the public who wish to be heard? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, we have two speakers from the public. The first one is Bob Mulhere followed by David Torres. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Very good. And Mr. Mulhere has requested additional time, and I have granted it because he's representing several owners. Go ahead, Mr. Mulhere. MR. MULHERE: Don't start the clock yet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have a brief presentation. Michele has answered some of the questions, so I won't spend a lot of time on those where I've gotten some answers. I just wanted to say at the outset that, I don't know, I think it was in 2012 or 2013 I and Bruce Anderson -- some of you know Bruce -- we worked together on behalf of a Rural Fringe Coalition, that was a group of landowners, to prepare a white paper. Not the white paper Michele referred to, but a white paper on behalf of those landowners. We made a presentation to the Board of County Commissioners. They accepted the white paper. Didn't really address any of the 24 recommendations we made. They supported some verbally but said, look, we accept this, and we think we should do a restudy. That restudy on the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District morphed into four restudies, and here we are at the end of the May 20, 2021 Page 26 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) line -- even though we started the process -- seven years later now finally looking at the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District. So I thought I'd give you a little bit of history. When we talk about doing a study in two years, add 10 to it, unless it's very specific. So let me just say, I represent a number of landowners out there. Some of these I'll tell you who I'm specifically representing, because they really apply. For example, Lipman Family Farms; Jamie Weisinger is in attendance. And in other cases, I do want to disclose that there actually is -- the county has hired Tindale Oliver to do an assessment of alignment and land uses and other planning issues in the North Belle Meade. So where Wilson Boulevard will come down, it had been planned to come straight down. Perhaps it may go further west at an earlier point to serve that area. And I am a sub-consultant to Tindale Oliver. So I won't speak to any of those issues because, obviously, I'm working on behalf of Tindale Oliver who's working on behalf of the county, but I did want to disclose that. So the first recommendation that concerns me is this limitation on private-property rights here, which is this policy that says any comprehensive plan amendment to increase residential density within the subdistricts in this district shall only provide for that density increase through the utilization of Transfer of Development Rights. I think that that is -- that can be decided as a particular GMP amendment is submitted. If there is a proposal to not use TDRs, you can make a decision -- a recommendation, and the Board can make a decision not to support that; however, if we look at one that you've looked at for transmittal recently, which was the Immokalee Road Rural Village, the environmental -- the nongovernmental environmental groups have supported a bonus for restoring the farm fields, the 80 or 90 acres of farm fields, which you agreed with and which the Board agreed with, at least at transmittal. So there are going to be examples where there are public benefits, significant public benefits, that may warrant some density increase that may not be exactly tied to a TDR. So I think this is an overreach in my opinion. And you can look at it on a case-by-case basis. This is another, I think, potentially problematic recommendation which is the requirement that -- well, I mean, it depends on whether or not there's support to really look at in a relatively short period of time or to commence a restudy or a further study -- excuse me. I don't want to overuse that term "restudy" -- in the North Belle Meade and Belle Meade areas. So to suggest that you start that study maybe in two years means we're talking five to seven years. I can tell you that Lipman Family Farms is interested in moving forward on an expeditious path. Now, sure, they may continue to farm for some period of time, but they also may elect to convert some of their land to another use that's allowed for under the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District. They are willing to participate if the county is interested in sharing the cost for that assessment. You heard Eric Fey say the county will provide water and sewer. They have to plan for it. That's what we do. That's what the county always does. They look at where -- as Jeff said, they look at where the population's going to go, and then they plan for that. And there is always an opportunity for a public/private partnership in that -- at least in my opinion, in that process. Whether it's fronting some of the costs for the infrastructure improvements, whether it's providing for stormwater management within the system for roadway widening, but you see that all the time, so there is that opportunity. So if that's going to happen expeditiously, we would more than willing -- I'm speaking now on behalf of Lipman Family Farms -- to participate in that process either financially -- certainly we'll participate, but even financially, because there will be some costs for that assessment. COMMISSIONER FRY: What are you asking for specifically, Bob? MR. MULHERE: I'm just asking for a very certain time frame to commence that, and I think two years is too long. I think commence it within 12 months, and let's get moving on it, May 20, 2021 Page 27 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) because what was two years before has turned in -- to be seven or eight or nine years now. COMMISSIONER FRY: And you're addressing that to North Belle Meade? MR. MULHERE: I'm addressing that to the Belle Meade and the North Belle Meade. They've already started a study in the North Belle Meade. As I said, Tindale Oliver's been engaged to do that study. CHAIRMAN FRYER: The language that you quoted is the same language that I had -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- raised with respect to affordable housing and -- MR. MULHERE: Yep. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- and we added a proviso for that. What if -- and this may not work legally, and so, obviously, I want to know what the County Attorney says as well as other commissioners, but what about adding language that would say, except as otherwise provided herein or in furtherance of public benefit or something like that? MR. MULHERE: Well, that's what I suggested. And I have a slide that talks to that. There are -- I'll show it to you in just a minute. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Okay. MR. MULHERE: You know, staff's recommendation not to increase the non-village density from one to two except along Immokalee Road, I see no reason why you couldn't increase it to two. You must demonstrate that there's adequate infrastructure. We have a process for that. That's what we go through. That's either a Comprehensive Plan amendment or a rezone. If there isn't adequate infrastructure, you can't go forward. You can entitle your land. You simply can't go forward. It's called concurrency. So, I mean, I do understand the recommendation that we don't have enough information and we should do a restudy but, again, that goes back to my suggestion that that be in a time-certain and it be done pretty quickly, not extend it out over a long period of time. It will take a couple years to do that analysis, which I understand, but let's start it sooner than two years. This is, I think -- this recommendation, I think, has a lot of potential unintended consequences. So the idea that anything that's 300 acres or greater must be a rural village means that anything that's 300 acres or greater will have to have commercial uses, and I understand the basis for that. But you could have -- you could have a commercial -- a neighborhood commercial development that was always intended to serve the surrounding lands as well. If you look at the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District and you see the locations of those receiving lands, they are surrounded by -- on the east by Golden Gate Estates, and those were always intended to serve those communities as well. So there's not going to be a market for the requirement of neighborhood commercial in every single development in the RFMUD that's 300 -- that's 300 acres or greater. It makes no sense. You could certainly require it for a higher number, maybe 1,000 acres. Right now there's no requirement. It's a voluntary program. But if you want to require a project of a certain size be required to provide commercial, 300 acres is too small. So you're not going to get what you want. And if you did get it, it likely would not succeed in the marketplace, which was already mentioned by some of you. You know, there has to be demand for that use; otherwise, you're asking somebody to build something that's not going to succeed, and then you're forcing them to come in and develop a whole bunch of 299-acre non-village developments as opposed to maybe a larger development that could be served by some commercial that's in that area. So 300 acres is way too small in my opinion. I could support looking at providing commercial services for projects that exceed 300 acres, but requiring it doesn't make any sense to me. Maybe that becomes an item that you can consider on a project that's 300 acres or greater. So just looking at this map here, I think as Michele said, you know, the northernmost May 20, 2021 Page 28 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) receiving lands, assuming that the Immokalee Road Rural Village goes through and that's, you know, still in the works, it's still being reviewed, it will have to come back for adoption and rezone, that whole receiving area will be spoken for. And the next one, which is -- let's see. I can't find the -- well, right here, that one has been developed through the use of TDRs, and it's been developed in other than a village. There's really no room left to develop that, so you won't get one there. You will get one here potentially in the North Belle Meade. But, again, I agree, there has to be further assessment because right -- and that's going on right now, again. The initial part is going on with the county's engaging Tindale Oliver to look at corridors and land use in that area. So down here, again, if we're going to look at that, it's a very large area, thousands of acres. And if you require a minimum of 300 acres to have commercial uses, you're probably going to have a whole bunch of projects in here that will be -- that will not be sustainable in the marketplace at that 300-acre level. Better to plan it more holistically. You're still going to reduce the vehicle miles traveled and external trips, but you can't be completely self-sufficient. As Jeff said, people have to work. Maybe not everybody, but a lot of people have to work. And they're going to leave the development for various reasons, unless you can import the beach and all the employment into one location. Let's talk about this ag preservation TDR bonus. I think that requires a lot more assessment. One TDR per five acres. Would you give up perpetually all of your future development rights for $20,000 on five acres? No one's going to use this. It's not sufficient. If you want someone to agree to do an ag easement and limit the use of land, you either need to consider, which is done in some places, a time frame -- it's not perpetual; 20 years -- or there has to be more than one TDR per five acres. You might as well not -- it's not going to happen. There's not enough value in 20- or- 22- or 25,000 on a five-acre ag parcel. In sending, because of the environmental value, you're giving up to four TDRs. So, you know, ag has a lot more economic generation of value to the landowner. So there's not enough incentive there. It's not going to happen. It needs more study. Come up with something that works. MR. KLATZKOW: What you're saying is it needs more density. MR. MULHERE: Or some other value, yes, yes. I mean, it's -- if we want to preserve ag, it's a worthwhile policy objective, but if it's not going to work, then we're going to be back here in five years saying, how come this didn't work? Let's do a little more time to analyze that. So this slide here -- unfortunately, I haven't done a good job. I did this last night at 4:00. But the ag -- the rural industrial area that Michele references right here and, technically, that's not part of the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District, because it's designated industrial. And as Michele said, she's got language to encourage locating targeted industries in the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District. But I'm here to tell you there are a ton of small businesses that can't find place to locate their business that aren't qualified uses under the state statute definition: Subcontractors, contractors landscape companies. All of these people, they call my office all the time. This is anecdotal, I realize, but for the last 20 or 30 years, we've been talking about expanding industrial-zoned land in this county, and it hasn't happened. So the proposal here was to allow in the Comp Plan a policy that would allow for expansion of this rural industrial area to adjacent lands. Michele's concern is a valid one. It has to be compatible with the other adjacent lands if you're going to expand it. My point is, why not put a policy in that allows for that? You're still going to have to -- and require a PUD zone or a rezone to industrial. May 20, 2021 Page 29 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) You're still going to have the opportunity to look at that as part of the rezone. You're going to be able to determine whether or not that rezone has appropriate uses and has other elements that will make that expansion of the industrial area through a PUD or straight industrial zoning compatible with surrounding lands. The property owner still has to go through a rezone. It still requires a supermajority vote at the Board of County Commissioners. It just doesn't take as long as a full-blown Comprehensive Plan amendment to do that. And right now you're probably talking about 12 to 15 months to get a rezone. If you're doing a Comp Plan, it's probably two years. So I don't know why we wouldn't allow that when you have the ability to look at that on a site-specific basis. And this is the only place where you have that rural industrial in the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District. This is the only location. The client that I represent, Keith Basic, owns this TTRBC zoning right here and would like to expand that. Now, sure, he can submit his own Comprehensive Plan amendment, but I don't know why -- it doesn't make sense to allow that by policy in the Comprehensive Plan and then look at the details of compatibility of uses. That's what you do during the rezone process. So some general considerations or concerns that I have -- and I think the staff did a very good job. It's comprehensive. You know, there are things that are difficult. That's why they haven't been addressed. There are some issues that are very difficult to get your arms around. For example, the balance of sending credits and receiving. Look, if in the marketplace a developer, if you want to use that term, wants to develop land in the rural fringe but he can't make it work because he has to acquire these TDRs and the cost of that just doesn't make sense at one unit per acre outside of a village -- we know that's the case -- and you increase the density, then you also need to increase the amount of credits, of sending credits. You have to remember that a principal objective of the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District was to make the sending landowners whole to compensate them for the loss of value. I don't know -- it wasn't said, but sending landowners had their density reduced from one per five to one per 40 as part of this process. They lost significant value, except that if you owned a parcel that was less than -- or five acres or -- it was less than 40 acres, you could still develop, you know, one unit per acre even if you had two acres or five acres. But the density was reduced to one per 40. And to compensate in a legally supportable fashion, the county adopted the TDR program. So if there's no demand for these TDRs, then you are not compensating those sending landowners. They've lost value, and they haven't been compensated. So really the -- MR. KLATZKOW: How have they lost value if they retained the base development rights? MR. MULHERE: They don't retain the base. They went from one per five to one per 40, Jeff. They lost value. That's why the TDR program was adopted. So there was a loss of value. That's why it was adopted. So it has to be -- it has to work. And it's a difficult -- it is a difficult thing to consider; whereas, in the RLSA you're 100 percent correct; it's purely voluntarily. This was labeled as a voluntary, too. Well, it wasn't voluntary to reduce the density on sending lands. It was mandated. And I was involved and part of the process to write those. So I can tell you, it was a reduction in density and uses; a lot of uses were taken away as well. And it's appropriate because that's highly valuable environmentally sensitive land. You saw the map. Those are protected. But if it doesn't work -- if there's not interest in the receiving lands to acquire those TDRs, then they will not -- they will not be compensated. So I think there's a little bit more in terms of understanding how many TDRs will be necessary. The staff evaluation of how many will be necessary assumed that only 60 percent of, for example, the Belle Meade -- which is not only the Lipman family, but there are other significant landholders in the Belle Meade. I disagree with that. Over the long period of time, it will be 100 percent -- a desire to use 100 percent, whether that's to entitle 100 percent of that land. That's May 20, 2021 Page 30 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) going to require a lot more TDRs than are available. So I think that there needs to be a little bit more study in the amount of TDRs. You know, keep in mind, we keep saying that you can get four TDRs, but right now it's very difficult to get four. That fourth TDR, that conveyance credit, is very difficult to get. Now, there are some locations where the state is willing to acquire the land, and there's some locations where the county even has acquired the land but, for the most part, it's difficult, especially on the smaller parcels. Nobody's interested in buying five acres isolated here or even having it gifted, because they have, then, the ongoing maintenance costs. So that -- I don't think you can -- when you do an assessment, you can't count, you know, that fourth TDR as something that's even achievable. So I do think -- you know, and I'm happy to get with staff between now and the next meeting or even between now and adoption. I don't know if you'll approve these today. If you do, then I'll be happy to get with them before the BCC meeting. Let's see. I'm closing up now. I appreciate the extra time. Mr. Chairman, you asked about the public benefits. I said here in the second bullet, why not include TDR incentives for significant public benefits? I say, regardless of the designation, really, it mainly applies to the receiving lands. Some examples include providing easements or fee simple title to land that can be used for public benefits such as flowways. There's long been a desire to have some flowway improvements in that Belle Meade to let that water that traditionally runs north to south go under Tamiami Trail, and that could have habitat value as well, depending on the width of it. So that's one. Restoring disturbed lands. We talked about the farm fields in the Immokalee Road Rural Village as an example. You have that situation. Maybe -- when the Belle Meade develops, maybe there's an opportunity to create some sending lands, to create some lands that -- it's a very large -- it's 10 or 12 sections of land, maybe more. Providing public trails, pathways. There's enumerable possibilities. So I think there should be a policy added and quantified that talks about providing TDRs for public benefits and enumerates what that is. And maybe you do that through the LDC, but you just have a policy that says, you know, you're going to provide TDR incentives for public benefits. COMMISSIONER FRY: Additional credits, Bob? MR. MULHERE: Yes, yeah. I've suggested increasing that environmental restoration bonus. I just want to make sure you're aware, if I own five acres or 10 acres or 15 or 20, I come in, first of all, I've got to pay for the application to have the TDRs severed, reviewed, and there is a legal review. There's a staff review. You've got to pay for that. And then I have to pay to have that land, you know, restored, and then there's a maintenance cost to that. So I'm a small landowner. I've got to spend some money. How much? I don't know. Minimally 20,000; probably quite a bit more. Now, what am I getting back? Let's say it's a five-acre parcel. It costs me maybe $20,000 to do the environmental restoration, and I can generate probably only three credits. So let's say -- let's just give 20,000 a credit. That's 60,000. It cost me 20,000, minimally. So now I have a return of 40,000. There isn't -- people are not seeing a perceived value there. They'd rather hold onto their five acres and maybe build something or sell it for more value other than the 40,000 net gain that I might get through this TDR process. So we have to look at increasing the number of credits, because even though the value may come down -- if you increase the number of credits, the value per credit may come down, but if I can get more, what I get as a return will be higher. That concludes my presentation. I appreciate the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, for a little bit extra time. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. And you might stay up here while we decide how May 20, 2021 Page 31 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) we're going to deal with this. You raised a half a dozen points or so. My first question is, have you discussed these with staff? Has this been fully -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. I actually sent a letter. Everything I raised here, I believe -- Michele will correct me if I'm wrong -- but I think everything that I raised here, other than suggesting to you -- because we just discussed it. I just discussed it with Jamie Weisinger from Lipman Farm -- the willingness to participate in this process now and to have a certain time frame within which that study should commence, and participation -- and we can figure that out. Whether it's helping to offset the cost of that assessment -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. MULHERE: -- that was new. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'd like to ask a member of staff to come up as we attempt to decide how we're going to proceed with this. One thing we could do is -- Mr. Mulhere's raised about six points. We could hear from staff on each of those or if -- COMMISSIONER FRY: What about the other public speaker? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, I know. I know. But just dealing with these points for now. Also, another way that we could approach this is if we don't believe that it's been fully thought out and talked through, if there could be progress made by having staff sit down with Mr. Mulhere and his clients and bring something back to us that would reduce the number of these objections or concerns, that's a possibility, too. COMMISSIONER FRY: Ned, I just have a question. There's only one other public speaker registered, I believe. And I'm wondering if we let him speak and then we kind of have all the public comment. Maybe he had something that we want to bring staff in, and we could do it all at once after this one other person speaks. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm fine with that, yeah. Okay. We'll do that. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I have a question. I mean, just before you move on, but that's fine. I don't want to interrupt what you're discussing now. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Do we just have one more public speaker? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Our final speaker on this item is David Torres. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, sir. Go ahead, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. So I just have a real basic question, and I don't think, you know, our last speaker mentioned this. But I'm trying to figure out, so I thought this was kind of a long process, and we're near the end of it, and I'm just trying to figure out why -- why is this coming up now as, like, an addenda that we're patching onto something? And, fine, maybe it has been something that was raised all along and, you know, the staff has just, you know, chosen to not include it in their recommendation. But I would like to know -- you know, to have staff answer that question as well as the last speaker. You know, I don't understand why we're patching something onto something that seems like it was already in a form that had been vetted. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, that's exactly why I wanted to get staff up here and find out to what extent, if any, these issues have been fully argued and it's coming to us now in a point of clarity where we can see the differences and make decisions or whether we need to send it back for some more discussion, but we haven't heard from staff yet. MR. MULHERE: So, Mr. Klucik, it's Bob Mulhere. I was the previous speaker. I'll give you my perspective, and then staff can give you theirs. You know, we received the draft -- the proposed draft amendments, I don't know, several months ago, two months ago. There May 20, 2021 Page 32 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) was about a two-week period to reply, and I think Michele mentioned that. There were a bunch of public meetings -- when you say it was a long time, yeah, there was four or five years of -- you may recall Kris Van Lengen who was with the county doing public meetings and having studies. But we did not receive these draft amendments until about two months ago. I replied on behalf of several clients in writing to Michele, which was requested within that two-week period. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Excuse me. Just let me, like, ask a real basic question. So are you saying that what you're presenting today is really -- you wouldn't have had a reason to present it previously; it really is -- it's responsive to the draft? MR. MULHERE: Yes, that's correct. And I did have a couple a -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Full disclosure, I did have a couple of conversations with staff, telephone conversations, maybe a couple of chitchats in the hallway. I mean, there wasn't any real discussion or change or opportunity to further discuss. There was basically "thanks for your input." So, obviously, I have an obligation on behalf of my clients to raise these issues at this public forum. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Did your client participate in the process and, you know, did they go to all those meetings? MR. MULHERE: Oh, yes. We were the ones that started the process seven years ago with the white paper that we presented to the Board of County Commissioners with 24 recommendations. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: But are you saying that what we have in front of us today as the recommendation, you know, was novel, and so you wouldn't have known that this was going to be in there and these weren't issues that had been discussed? Because what's not fair to us, in my view, to me, as a commissioner, is to have a process come forward -- and we did it last -- at our last meeting, and I don't like the idea that that's a regular thing, because then it -- then we're passing something on, and it just doesn't seem like the process is supposed to work that way, and that's all. And it doesn't allow us to make, you know, a prudent and measured analysis. You know, we're voting on the fly on something that you're bringing before us. I mean, I realize, you know, you put stuff in, and, you know, you submitted it -- MR. MULHERE: Well -- I'm sorry, go ahead. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. And that's -- it's just frustrating to me as someone who is then asked to vote on this. I just -- I don't appreciate -- and I'm not saying that it's your fault. I'm just saying I don't appreciate that this is the process, because I don't think it's fair to us. You know, we're supposed to be making wise decisions, and I don't know as this is a process that leads to wise decisions. MR. MULHERE: And I don't disagree with your comments, but the -- there were some -- I wouldn't say everything is novel, and I don't have problems with everything. In fact, I'm not necessarily disagreeing. I'm offering what I believe, on behalf of my clients, would be better solutions to some of the recommendations. So, I mean, before I saw those draft recommendations, I never saw a proposal to require a rural village for any project over 300 acres. Before I saw those recommendations, there was always, leading up to this since Ventana was approved, an agreement on the part of staff and a suggestion by the Board that two units per acre would be appropriate. Now, I fully understand staff's suggestion that they would withhold that in a couple of areas until there is an assessment of the necessary infrastructure to support that. What I'm suggesting is that should be more defined and more expeditious. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to go back to my original idea, if I may, Planning Commission, and ask for Mrs. Mosca to come up and give us the -- we're at a process point here. May 20, 2021 Page 33 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) We're not ready to decide what to do with the substantive issues. But I just want to know, you know, to what degree staff had a full conversation with Mr. Mulhere and his clients on all of these points. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And, Mr. Chairman, if I could, just to Mr. Mulhere, I certainly am not impugning Mr. Mulhere or his client as the reason, you know, for the frustration. I'm just expressing that, you know -- and I don't know if fellow commissioners share the concern. I just -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, I think we do. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: This seems to be the point to bring -- at which -- you know, it would be appropriate to bring up the frustration, and I certainly -- it does not at all mean that I think it's Mr. Mulhere's fault or his client's fault. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Understood. And so we'll hear from Ms. Mosca, and we'll certainly get to the other speaker before we get into doing anything substantive. Go ahead, ma'am. MS. MOSCA: Again, Michele Mosca, for the record. So I just want to address a few of Bob's points, and he does have some valid points. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, first of all, I want to step up a few thousand feet and look down. MS. MOSCA: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And the question is, is have you had full discussions with him and his clients on these very issues? MS. MOSCA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You have? MS. MOSCA: Yes, except for Bob mentioning the shared expense of an assessment. We haven't discussed that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All the other -- MS. MOSCA: But we've had discussions in the past, yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. And in the course of those discussions, did you make any changes that were favorable to his client that are baked into what you brought forward? MS. MOSCA: We did not. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. But it was based upon the thoughtful consideration that after hearing him you were satisfied with what you had? MS. MOSCA: Well, I believe so. But to take it a step further, I think with that recommendation to study the area further, both the Belle Meade and North Belle Meade areas, I think we can address a lot of those concerns. Again, most of the development is, in fact, going to occur in the future in those two areas. So I think we can address that. If the Board provides for that year time frame, staff is okay with that time frame. We'd be happy to do that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, again, I'm groping for the way -- the best way to proceed here. And if -- I see two possibilities. One is is that we continue this for further discussions at the staff level, but that may be duplicative of discussions that have already been had. And if that's the case, if things are fully baked, we could get the staff representative and Mr. Mulhere up here and do a point and counterpoint and hear his objection and hear the response and try to make a decision on these issues and try to get it resolved today. Obviously, after hearing the other speaker. So what do you all want to do? COMMISSIONER SHEA: I like what you said, point/counterpoint while we're here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Does that make sense? COMMISSIONER FRY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. So we'll ask you, then, ma'am, to stand down for the moment -- May 20, 2021 Page 34 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) MS. MOSCA: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- and we'll bring you back up. And now we'll hear from the other speaker. MR. TORRES: Hi. I'm David Torres with Hacienda Lakes of Naples. We are a large landowner in the program areas. I would guess that we are probably the largest company that has severed TDRs and that has used them. So we've been participants of the program. You know, I'd like to start saying, I mean, I thank Michele and Anita for driving this forward. I mean, it's been a long time. I mean, I served as president of the Rural Fringe Coalition that Bob referred to before. I mean, that it's been seven, eight years. So I'm glad that we're here; however, I'm not glad with what we're coming out. You know, the program has -- it has no liquidity. I mean, there's not enough TDRs. There's not enough demand. I mean, there's got to be more demand and more supply. It's just difficult to get things done. I mean, like you said, the guys at Ventana Pointe, it's true. I mean, anybody who's kind of used the program, it's been like our situation. We have both sides of it. So, I mean, I am not a fan of another study. I mean, I don't think we need it. I don't think we need an outside consultant. I think Eric is fully capable. There's a lot of staff that's capable on the infrastructure side. If staff would only kind of listen to the owners, I mean, we could get something better done now without having to hope that another study gets done and we wait another five, six years. And it's not that -- we've sent comments as well. It's not that they haven't been talked to with staff. It's more that I think staff decided this is the way they're going forward, and they're going forward without any changes. And I truly believe that some of these things can be talked to. The Belle Meade cannot wait. I mean, it's ready to get developed now. I mean, it would be a big miss to wait; another study, wait for years. And even though on the sending side it's difficult that you have a lot of small owners, you know, those owners want more TDRs. They want more value. You know, they feel -- that's when they're going to go into the program. On the other side, the receiving side is easy. The Belle Meade has two big guys, the Lipmans and another company called Agri Serves (phonetic), and then there is some scattered acreage. But for the most part, it's not that hard to get a couple people in a room and see if something can be vetted out with staff without having to do another study. So I guess that's my comment. My comment would be, it would be nice if we could -- if we could talk for the next 45 days and try to come up with something without really having to wait for another study that is going to turn into another set of changes five years from now. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER FRY: Question. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm curious about your response -- your level of agreement or disagreement with the points made by Mr. Mulhere as representing another ownership group. MR. TORRES: Yeah. I'm in agreement with many of the comments that Bob's brought to the table, but I don't want to say that I'm not in agreement with some of the programs that the county wants to put in place. I mean, I think some of them are good. I think we just have to go the whole way is what I mean. I think it's just -- we've waited too long to do these too small of changes in my opinion. COMMISSIONER FRY: Your main point is you'd like to see the -- Belle Meade or North Belle Meade? MR. TORRES: I'd like to see a resolution on the Belle Meade, personally. I think the study's a mistake. I see us creating this two classes of receiving lands now. The guys on May 20, 2021 Page 35 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) Immokalee Road got preferential treatment. They get to go to two, and the guys on 41 get to stay at one per acre. I don't see it. And traffic's worse up there. I don't see -- yeah, maybe utilities and stuff for the south side, but I would say the road infrastructure's better on the south part of the county. I may be mistaken, but -- And then on the other side, I think we just need -- we need a lot more TDRs. I don't buy this whole basis that we create the program with less supply in the TDRs than there is demand. It's just too hard to get them. And there are some good programs that they need. I mean, if they truly need this Belle Meade flowway and everybody's excited about it, then give more TDRs for it. And then give more for the exotic removal. It costs money. It doesn't make sense currently right now, so... CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you, sir. I'm going to ask now for staff in the person, I guess, of Ms. Mosca or Ms. Jenkins, and Mr. Mulhere take the other mic. MR. KLATZKOW: Mr. Chair, may I interrupt, because we've got people outside waiting? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Of course. MR. KLATZKOW: Richard has a request to make. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: For the record, Rich Yovanovich. The Comp Plan amendment and the zone requests for the corner of Santa Barbara and Golden Gate Parkway, there's a lot of people here who are interested in that petition. We have met with them outside. We would like the opportunity -- we have some proposed changes to the petition, but I think it would be more effective if we can meet with them. And so we're asking for a continuation -- or a continuance to the second meeting in June. We may -- they want to have some time to analyze what we're proposing. We may come back to you and say we still need a couple more weeks, but we're asking for a continuance till the second meeting in June so we don't have to sit around, and I don't think it's fair to them or us to drop this on you-all for the first time. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. That makes sense. Any objections to a continuance for the Santa Barbara -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: I think it's a great idea. COMMISSIONER FRY: Why would we ever reject a request like that? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Without objection, continuance granted. COMMISSIONER FRY: I want to say thank you. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: You're welcome. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Do we need a motion? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I am on the board. MR. KLATZKOW: Could we make a motion, please. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sure. Is there a motion for continuance? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Make a motion to continue those two items till -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Second. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Second meeting in June. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Second meeting in June. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second meeting in June. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER FRY: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. May 20, 2021 Page 36 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you. Okay. Perhaps if we could start, Mr. Mulhere, by going back, and I think there were about six of them, roughly, to -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. MS. JENKINS: Mr. Chair, before we do that, Anita Jenkins, for the record. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, ma'am. MS. JENKINS: I just wanted to clarify that this process is no different than all the other restudy processes that you've had before you in that you have other interested parties providing different ideas to you. So this is no different. And I wouldn't suggest that we need to continue this to work things out. I think that we can do that here today and work through these. But this process is no different. It's just a -- it's not an environmental concern. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I agree insofar as what you're saying is that we ought to get this resolved today. And I'm hopeful that your responses to his issues can be succinct and stated in a brief and clear and persuasive fashion so that we can deal with them and get to a point where we can vote. MS. JENKINS: Will do. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Mulhere. MR. MULHERE: Yep. So I think the first thing I raised was the outright prohibition on any Comprehensive Plan coming forward to increase density unless it utilizes the TDR program, which I think is fine. We do want to use the TDR program, but I think that there are going to be unintended consequences. I just -- I just don't know that that's necessary. You know, a property owner has a right to come in and ask for a Comprehensive Plan amendment, and they can amend the language that prohibits them from doing this. So, really, those things are addressed on a case-by-case basis. CHAIRMAN FRYER: May I interrupt in the name of brevity? MR. MULHERE: Sure. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think you're suggesting that in addition to the affordable housing method of getting TDRs that I suggested that there also be language that provides for an applicant the privilege of arguing for a public benefit. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there objection to that? MS. MOSCA: There's no objection, because the Board will look at that anyway with a Comprehensive Plan change. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MS. MOSCA: So I don't object to that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Next point. MS. MOSCA: The next point is the minimum size of 300 acres. If you're 300 acres or greater, you must be a rural village. Now, what that means is that you must then provide -- you absolutely must then provide neighborhood commercial and other uses based on the formulas that are in here: 53 square feet per dwelling unit. And I do understand that, but -- the benefits from a traffic perspective of internal capture and of reducing demand, but I don't think it's going to make May 20, 2021 Page 37 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) sense in every circumstance. So my suggestion is you increase that acreage to 1,000 but you allow for consideration of whether or not that makes sense on projects between 300 and 999 acres. So you are going to look at it. If it makes sense, it can be requested or even required but not absolutely required on projects that are 300 acres or above. It just doesn't make sense. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: So, Bob, you're saying there are -- what percentage of cases do you think a 300-acre development would come in without commercial by preference? MR. MULHERE: By preference? Most. COMMISSIONER FRY: Most? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. But I think a 500- or 600-acre or 700-acre project or 1,000 or 2,500 or 3,000, those will have the benefit. They can serve those smaller -- you're going to have a bunch of 299-acre non-village developments, two or three right next to each other with no commercial. It does not make sense. COMMISSIONER FRY: We've experienced that -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, we have. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- in the RLSA with villages versus towns. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Before I ask Ms. Jenkins to reply, any other planning commissioners want to weigh in? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Ms. Jenkins. MS. JENKINS: So when we first started looking at this, the requirement right now provides for a village from 300 acres to 1,500 acres or 2,500 acres in some cases, but that's the standard now. So a minimum to 300 and a maximum to 1,500 -- or 2,500. So that's what we were looking at. So the establishment was already there. So when we looked at the restudy, we said, well, does 300 really work? We were asking the same question. So the research that we did led us to what you see on your screen right now as one example, and that's Habersham, South Carolina, and it's exactly 300 acres, and it's been nominated as, you know, one of the best neighborhoods in America by the National Builders Association, and it is a 300-acre development that does provide commercial and a multitude of different types of residences. I will also say that that thought of requiring 300 acres was tied back to the white paper where we were suggesting an increase of density, right. So I think when we're saying that if we're not increasing the density until we look at this more specifically to look at the internal captures, then maybe that requirement doesn't happen until we get to the more specific of the receiving areas, because those two things were tied together; that if you are going to do a receiving area and if you are going to do four to seven units, then you could support more neighborhood commercial in 300 acres. But if we're not changing the density right now and we're leaving it at one unit per acre, then that's, you know, 300 or 600 units in a 300-unit -- or 300-acre project. So I think that we need to consider if we're going to increase density, 300 acres may work. If we're not going to increase density right now, that amendment might be more acceptable during the re -- or during the study of the specific areas for receiving and how that would all shape out at that time. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. MULHERE: May I just respond very quickly? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Of course. MR. MULHERE: I have no doubt that you can design and develop an award-winning mixed-use project on 300 acres. That's not my point. My point is that requiring every project that's 300 acres does not make sense. You can May 20, 2021 Page 38 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) look at it on a case-by-case basis. I think over a larger minimum size probably does make sense. I agree with Anita. What she said makes sense. Since we're not going to -- we're not going to increase the density as part of this and we're going to look at that, if this policy is removed and we look at it as part of this next assessment, that works, too. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER FRY: This next assessment being the one that starts -- MR. MULHERE: In a year. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- within a year -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: We hope. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- partly funded by the Lipman Family Farms. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And that, actually, was your next point, was it not? MR. MULHERE: Well -- yeah. I mean, I heard what David said, and I think -- and I think Anita agreed, too, that we don't necessarily -- that we can hash these things out now. But I agree this is the process. You know, the staff gives us a draft. We review the draft. We make comments. They don't have to agree to them. I mean, we know that, and that's what we come here for, to discuss why we think one idea's better than maybe what they've suggested, and it's not -- it's not that -- I think they've done a great job, as David said, moving these things forward. The majority of it is fine. There are just a few points that we disagree with. So, I think -- you know, again, if the Board, Planning Commission and the BCC, is inclined to go with this process of looking at those two areas differently, which they've already commenced in the one area, North Belle Meade, again, Tindale Oliver, it should be an expedited; very time-certain to get started. I mean, you can't predict when you'll be done, but you can certainly predict when you'll get started. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Can we establish a sooner start date? MS. MOSCA: Yes. We'll bring that forward to the Board. The Board will have to agree to that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Really? MS. MOSCA: As a recommendation? Sure. We'll bring the recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. Staff is in support of the 12-month period, but the Board will have to fund it, provide funding for that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, okay. Okay, all right. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Is that a 12-month period to bring this to a conclusion -- MR. MULHERE: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Start. COMMISSIONER SHEA: -- or just to start it? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. MS. MOSCA: It's my understanding. MR. MULHERE: It's going to take longer. It will take longer. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Wow. MR. MULHERE: Look, the wheels of government move slowly, but a couple of years -- it may take -- to start it. It could take year to complete it, maybe a little bit longer. I mean, to get it right, it's worth the time. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Why can't we start it next week? MR. MULHERE: Well, I've got to defer to -- it says within a year. It doesn't say you couldn't start it sooner. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It needs funding, and that's why it's got to go to the BCC. MS. MOSCA: Staff will support the 12-month initiation, so that's not at issue. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Next point, Mr. Mulhere. MR. MULHERE: Well, I do have a concern. I think it was very good to have the May 20, 2021 Page 39 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) ag -- because part of the state's final order was to look at ag preservation. They used the word "prime agriculture," which actually is tied to soils. We don't have prime agriculture. You find that in deltas. But we do have unique agriculture, and we all eat, so I understand, you know. But I don't know if it just was, sort of, let's throw out one TDR and see what we get. My opinion is that requires a little more consideration, because I don't think you're going to get anybody giving up their perpetual development rights for $20,000 for five areas. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is that part of the 12-month -- is that part of this restudy we're talking about that starts within 12 months? MS. MOSCA: I think it should be. COMMISSIONER FRY: I guess I'm trying to be clear on which of Bob's points are covered under this -- MS. MOSCA: I think all of them. I think Bob agreed to the 12-month for all of them. I mean, it seems appropriate that we would. As you can recall, as I went through some of the tables, even staff's evaluation of the Board-directed amendment for the additional credit. We were concerned who really would use it, we were very conservative, and it was a very low number, if you can recall going through that table. MR. MULHERE: So, you know, one thought. Really, the largest agricultural production area of all of this, assuming you recommend and the Board agrees they're going to do an assessment, is the Belle Meade by far. I mean, it's not even close. And as David said, there's just a few landowners in there that have the largest amount of those holdings. So if we're going to look at an ag preservation TDR bonus and whether it should be perpetual or for some period of time and what the numbers should be, why adopt something like this right now? Why not let that be part of this assessment as well, you know? And I think that's what Michele said, in fewer words. MS. MOSCA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So that's something that is going to take place in the next restudy. Okay. All right. Next point. MR. MULHERE: I'm just looking right now. MS. MOSCA: I think it was rural industrial. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. Well -- and, again, that also is surrounded. So that rural industrial designated area, there's a -- three's a road aggregate. My client doesn't own that portion, but there's a portion that has some road aggregate construction type stuff out there, and then there's a lot of these smaller business owners that are leasing space in the current area that have these kinds of uses that aren't targeted industries by definition. And so perhaps, because it is surrounded by the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District, we could, you know, consider that. I mean, I still think it makes sense to allow an expansion to the adjacent parcel within -- and within 300 feet of the existing boundary. You're going to get the more thorough review as part of the rezone. You're going to get the traffic analysis. You're going to get the compatibility. You're going to get the use analysis, and you're going to require a supermajority vote. So what are you doing by putting this policy in there? The only thing you're doing is you are making that process a little faster and a little more supportable as part of that rezone process. So, I mean, I know staff is not supportive of it, and I just think that it would make sense to put it in as a policy. MS. MOSCA: And Bob's correct; staff's not supportive of that. In the past there were two previous Comprehensive Plan amendments requesting for some additional uses in that area. And I think as part of a Comprehensive Plan amendment, this is really site specific. And the May 20, 2021 Page 40 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) residents around that area who opposed the expansion in the past really should be able to provide input as part of that process. So to me this is not really part of the amendments to the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District. It's more in line with a site-specific Comp Plan amendment. MR. MULHERE: And I understand. So, you know -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. MULHERE: -- the one piece of good news is there is a proposed bill in the legislature to increase the size -- minimum size for small-scale amendments. So that might make it a little less painful. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Those are all the points that I recorded. MR. MULHERE: That was it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I got it? Okay. Planning Commission, any comments? Questions? COMMISSIONER FRY: Just clarifying one of his points was the limitation of expanding to two dwelling units per acre only along Immokalee Road. The decision on that is part of this restudy, or -- MS. MOSCA: For the expansion to the -- to allow that within the one to two dwelling units per acre. To allow that within the Belle Meade and North Belle Meade areas would be part of that assessment. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. But the current amendments would allow that, but that was only -- that's along Immokalee Road outside of rural villages only. MS. MOSCA: Right. And it's minimal. Unless the Immokalee Road Rural Village comes in, they don't do a village, then you're talking about, what, 4,000 units. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Commissioner Shea, do you have -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: I just have -- there was a discussion -- I think Bob mentioned something about public benefits, TDRs for that. Is that something we already agreed would go -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to try to categorize where I think we are. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Because I didn't hear him talk about that or increased credits on the maintenance side. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to try to deal with that when I summarize. Anything else? COMMISSIONER SHEA: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Here's where I think we are. And please correct me if I'm wrong. But I believe, first of all, we agreed to add the affordability and the public benefit language for the increase in TDRs. Second, I think we want to recommend that the next study or restudy commence within 12 months and that it include reexamination of the 300-acre minimum, and the ag preservation of one TDR per five acres, and other issues that are to be discussed. And so I think that's really where we've come down. MS. MOSCA: I just have a point of clarification, if you wouldn't mind. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. MS. MOSCA: On that first one, that was related to increased density for using a -- utilizing TDRs through a Comprehensive Plan amendment, correct? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. MS. MOSCA: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So unless I've misstated it, are we ready for a motion? COMMISSIONER SHEA: I think so. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Would anyone care to make a motion? COMMISSIONER SHEA: So let me ask a question. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So the motion is to approve staff's recommendation subject to May 20, 2021 Page 41 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) these conditions or -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, and that's a good point. This would be action on recommendation for transmittal, because it's coming back. And we need to ask ourselves, do we want -- do we want to put this on consent for our meeting on the 26th so we see how the language has been prepared, or simply rely on staff to get it right? I think it's pretty straightforward: Affordability and public benefit. MS. MOSCA: Commissioner, one more point of clarification before you provide for your vote. So you also had a few recommended changes regarding the greenbelt and so forth, so that would be incorporated into all of that -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Yes, it would. Good point. Thank you. Should we bring this back on consent, or should we let it go? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I don't think we need to bring it back. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah, I agree. Let it go. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So we're ready for a motion, then. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll make a motion to recommend transmittal with all the changes that you just listed and Michele just spoke of. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Do we -- are we satisfied that we have clarity? COMMISSIONER FRY: Michele, do you feel we have clarity on what exactly -- the changes and verbiage you're going to generate? MS. MOSCA: Yes, I do. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you very much. MS. MOSCA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It is nine minutes of noon. It seems to me we'd be best served by starting our lunch a little earlier than starting another matter. Without objection, we will take an hour and nine minutes for lunch and return at 1:00 p.m. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Oh, that means Karl might make it back. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. We're in recess until 1:00. (A luncheon recess was had from 11:51 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ladies and gentlemen, it's 1:00. Let's reconvene, please. ***Our second petition today is PL20190001489, the Lawmetka Plaza CPUDA. All those wishing to testify in this matter, please raise your hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Disclosures starting with Mr. Eastman. MR. EASTMAN: No disclosures. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only. May 20, 2021 Page 42 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) COMMISSIONER FRY: Ditto. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Matters of public record, meetings with staff, communications with the applicant. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nothing for me. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Meeting with staff. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Commissioner. All right. The applicant is here. MS. CLARK: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please proceed, ma'am. MS. CLARK: Thank you. My name is Kellie Clark. I'm a civil engineer with Kimley-Horn, and I'm here to speak today to Lawmetka Plaza. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ma'am, you might want to pull that -- if you're going to speak -- yeah, either speak into the mic or move the mic to yourself. MS. CLARK: Do you want me to repeat that for the record? THE COURT REPORTER: (Shakes head.) MS. CLARK: Okay. You got it. All right. This is the project location. It's located along Wiggins Pass and 41. This lists the applicant and agent, which is myself, and the property location. Before I go any further, I'd also like to note that we did have a neighborhood informational meeting, and we did have public participation in that and have had public comments. And we've reviewed those, and we do have our transportation engineer here today to speak to some of those items as well. So I'd just like to walk through some of the proposed changes -- or the proposed changes that were -- that are in front of you. The first is regarding the property ownership. This is more of a cleanup item as it relates to changing the name from Benderson Development Company to Benderson Properties, Inc. So more of an initial name change. The next is regarding the access. So this is proposed to go from two access points along Wiggins Pass Road to three, which would then change the total access points from four to five. With this change, there's also the proposed language to limit the eastern access to right-in, right-out only and the western access to service and delivery vehicles only, and also there's the language at the last sentence in this that talks to Collier County reserving the right to install, modify, or close medians in its sole discretion for road safety and capacity. I'd also like to hit on one additional -- or one deviation at this time, because it's also related to the transportation item, and then I'd like to turn it over to our transportation engineer. So this is the first deviation, Signage Deviation No. 1, which is seeking relief from the LDC to allow one additional directory sign, and this one would be located at the intersection of U.S. 41 and Wiggins Pass. And with that, I'd like to turn it over to Christopher Hatton. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. HATTON: Thank you, Kellie. Good afternoon. My name is Christopher Hatton. I'm a registered professional traffic engineer with Kimley-Horn. I have been conducting traffic studies and operational analyses for over 29 years and conducted the traffic analysis that resulted in these improvements. I'll go ahead and turn it to here. These improvements consist of, as Kellie had mentioned, adding a third driveway, which is going to be a right-in, right-out only onto Wiggins Pass Road while limiting the existing driveway to be used by service vehicles and delivery vehicles only. And this is an important point. The right-turn deceleration lanes will be constructed at both the new driveway as well as the middle project drive, which is the main driveway. As Kellie mentioned, we did have a neighborhood information meeting. There were some safety questions that were brought up by some of the folks there, so I'm going to try to point out May 20, 2021 Page 43 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) how our improvements -- try to address those safety concerns. So let's take a quick look at each of these improvements and see how these enhance the safety operations along Wiggins Pass Road in regard to the proposed project. First, the addition of a right-in, right-out only driveway as you could see up here -- it's not showing with the pointer, but I think you see it's located on the slide very easily. And this will be located east of the full access driveway, and this provides for project dispersion of project traffic into the development and actually reduces the amount of turning traffic at the main project driveway which subsequently helps reduce both conflicts and delay. Secondly, by providing the right-turn deceleration lanes at both the new proposed driveway as well as the main driveway, safety is going to be enhanced by removing turning vehicles from the through-lane traffic. So that, therefore, you're removing the vehicle friction as we call it, which would -- which had previously been there, which reduced the capacity of Wiggins Pass Road when vehicles had to slow down in the through lane to turn into the project. They will now have their own individual turn lane from which to do that. And, lastly, separating out the service volumes or the service and delivery vehicles to a specific driveway to the west, this, obviously, improves safety by separating out the service and delivery trucks keeping them separate from the smaller passenger vehicles. But as Kellie mentioned as well and as always is the consideration, in the event of an unforeseen issue, Collier County reserves the right to either install, modify, or close medians based upon the road safety and capacity and, of course, this provides an extra layer of safety coverage for citizens. Now, as Kellie mentioned also, the first deviation -- in regards to this Deviation 1, as you can see, for the addition of additional signage at the corner of 41 and Wiggins Pass, which is shown on the slide now. And then, really, the main justification for this is to alert patrons that were traveling northbound on U.S. 41 of the new driveway so that they may position themselves in that easternmost northbound left-turn lane so that they can have easy, convenient, and safe maneuvering into that driveway so they basically position themselves ahead of time. And this sign deviation addresses some of the safety concerns that we heard at the neighborhood information meeting regarding kind of the positioning and the location of the new driveway and some of the benefits that are seen by alerting them to the project driveway, and it's one of the things in my -- in all my years, that effective signage can always play a role in improving safety, so -- and I'll turn it over to Kellie. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Hatton before he steps down? COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: So the middle driveway there, or the one that says right-in, right-out only, that was formerly a full, all directional -- no? MR. HATTON: No, there's just two -- well, unfortunately, this doesn't show that well. The one on the west was existing, and that's now just going to be only for service and delivery, and the one that's right in the middle between the right-in, right-out, that is the main driveway. COMMISSIONER FRY: That's the new one. MR. HATTON: Well, no. The new one is actually the one that's got the right-in, right-out. That is the new one on the east. I'm sorry. I should have kind of given that as an overview before I started. COMMISSIONER FRY: So there's a median in Wiggins Pass Road so you cannot turn left out of there. MR. HATTON: Yes, there will be one constructed as well as with the deceleration lanes. COMMISSIONER FRY: And then is it easy -- so if you want to exit on Wiggins Pass May 20, 2021 Page 44 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) Road but you want to go back to the light and head north or south, you have to go and make a U-turn, make a right out and then -- MR. HATTON: Well, basically what I would do -- and it's certainly driver -- you know, either -- you know, expectancy would be knowing that if you're shopping in the shopping center, that the full -- basically, you would see the median, so you would probably do it -- I would do it in the shopping center. I would go to the main driveway and take a left just so you don't have to do a U-turn from that perspective. COMMISSIONER FRY: Main driveway being the one that says service -- no, main driveway on the other -- on the U.S. 41 side? MR. HATTON: This right here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Oh, okay. MR. HATTON: This one. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. That one wasn't marked, so I missed it entirely in that exhibit. MR. HATTON: Yeah. I apologize. I noticed that. I tried to use the laser pointer, but it's not showing up on that, so -- and I could have done that better, so sorry about that. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. That clears it up. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. MR. HATTON: Thank you. MS. CLARK: Our next item is regarding the landscape deviation, and this is seeking relief from the requirement of a 20-foot-wide Type D buffer down to the minimum 10-foot-wide Type D buffer, and because there is the reduction, we are proposing enhanced landscaping at this location. This is due to compensating right-of-way that occurred at this location, so an existing condition that exists in this location. And with that, I'd like to turn it over to Jen to speak a little bit more about what that enhancement looks like and what that Type D buffer would look like. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. CLARK: Thank you. MS. DAOULAS: Good afternoon. My name is Jennifer Daoulas. I'm a professional landscape architect. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Your last name again? MS. DAOULAS: Daoulas. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Spell, please. MS. DAOULAS: D-a-o-u-l-a-s. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. DAOULAS: You're welcome. As Kellie mentioned, we're seeking deviation from a typical Type D buffer. The Type D buffer is specified to be 20 feet per the width of the existing right-of-way. A Type D does allow for a 10-foot. It would just -- we're minimizing, and that's what we're asking in the deviation. It doesn't minimize the amount of planting that we're proposing. We'll still be meeting the Type D buffer requirements, and the deviation actually exceeds those requirements by adding taller trees five feet taller than the required 10, and then from a 30-foot on-center spacing to a 25-foot on-center spacing. The existing material out there, there are some existing oak trees and royals that count towards those shade requirements that meet that height, and then we would come in and supplement as required per the deviation along that buffer. Do you-all have any questions? May 20, 2021 Page 45 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) COMMISSIONER FRY: There's one thing I didn't pick up on in the packet is why -- so you have an existing 20-foot buffer now? MS. DAOULAS: Yes, yeah. COMMISSIONER FRY: But you want to reduce it to 10 feet but make it more dense? MS. DAOULAS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRY: Why do you -- why are you doing that? MS. DAOULAS: Because we're adding the turn lane in, and so adding the turn lane would move that sidewalk over. It would move it right on the edge of the -- I guess I can't move the mouse, huh? COMMISSIONER FRY: So it's to accommodate the turn lanes? MS. DAOULAS: Yeah, and it would move the sidewalk on the edge of that existing hedge row. So the goal is to maintain the existing hedge. We'll supplement as needed with any impacts from construction or any, you know, vegetation decline to bring the buffer back up to the required plus the deviation requirements. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. MS. DAOULAS: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any other questions or comments for Ms. Daoulas? (No response.) MS. DAOULAS: Thank you, all. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, ma'am. MS. CLARK: And then the last part of our amendment is regarding the master concept plan, and these -- this master concept plan is being updated to reflect the items that we've gone through, so it's to show that third access point as well as to show those deviations on the master concept plan. So it's related directly to everything that we've already covered. And that is it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any questions for Ms. Clark? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you so much. MS. CLARK: Thank you, all. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Staff presentation, please. MS. GUNDLACH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, I'm Nancy Gundlach, principal planner. And staff is recommending approval of the Lawmetka PUD amendment, as it is consistent with the Land Development Code and the Growth Management Plan. So if you have any questions, it would certainly be our pleasure to answer them. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Questions for Ms. Gundlach? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Nicely done. MS. GUNDLACH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Do we have any members of the public who wish to be heard on this? COMMISSIONER FRY: A bit wordy. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I love Nancy's reports. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, we have the actual applicant that is present that filled out a speaker form. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Does the applicant wish to be heard? MS. CLARK: I think they asked us to fill out those forms because we were upstairs. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Any other speakers? May 20, 2021 Page 46 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Yes, sir. We have Doug Fee. He will be our only speaker on this item. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Fee. MR. FEE: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Doug Fee, and I live up in the Wiggins Pass area. I've lived up there for around 20 years. And there's a lot on this PUD change, okay. On the surface it sounds pretty easy; just add an access. One of the things that we have to look at is the safety of the roadway and what you are approving. This right-in, right-out entrance, which will be the third one on Wiggins Pass Road, it's confusing right now as it is. There's two entrances already; one on the back of the building, which is supposed to be for trucks but, in fact, lots of people go through there. You could go this way and this way and exit, and there's no ability to stop the traffic. Two, you have the second entrance which was built not long ago that -- there was a proposed market, Lucky's Market. It went out. It's no longer there, although it has Lucky's on top. And there -- you also have two lanes that come off of 41 and go down the street, Wiggins Pass, you have a north and a south. And, in fact, the northbound lane is the turning lane to go into the plaza, okay. So you have vehicles that are having to go into a single lane, and they will race down the road, and one will try to get in front of the other. There's no medians. And I appreciate that Mr. Fry asked the applicant on the record, how are you going to make it a right-in, right-out? Because that is one of the keys to this. In the deviation language, in the transportation language, in fact, it says it's a right-in, right-out. Today, if that were built, lots of the people could come out with a right-out and circle back around and go out to 41. So be careful, because they're suggesting that you make it a right-in, right-out, but they're also saying in the language that the county has or the applicant has 24 months to do those improvements, make the turn lanes, and whatever the county decides on its policing powers, that's what's being decided, unless you as Planning Commission say, in order to approve this entrance, we want a median, okay. Now, what I'd like to do, if you'll give me just a moment, is I have two pictures that I'd like to put up here that are from the county's traffic camera. The camera looks west from 41. I don't know if you can see it. What you're viewing is from the light pole of 41 looking west. What I want to point out is there are three lanes that come east, and many times the northbound lane, you can see, it stacks. It goes way down and, in fact, shuts off traffic to go over 41 to the east side of Wiggins Pass, and it also stops southbound traffic. Now, what you're also seeing here, in the sidewalk you can see the little bend. Well, right there is where the new entrance will be. It may be safe to do this if you put a median so that, in fact, you don't get traffic that circles back around. But right now you have to say whether this applicant is involved in putting a median, because right now there is not, okay. The other thing I'll point out, okay, this is another picture of that same, and in season it is amazingly busy. And I know all intersections in the county are busy. But when it backs up, you really have a hard time. There are some communities that have streets, Center Street, West Street. They're on the south side. They do not have turn lanes. There are people that have to turn. And when you are in the double lane and you're turning, they will stop and, in fact, the through traffic that comes off 41, they have to maneuver around because there's no turn lanes, okay. Germain has trucks. They unload their vehicles in the middle stripe of this section. There's no median. It happens on a daily basis. It's not monthly. And, in fact, in their PUD, which is on the south side of the road, they have loading zones. The neighborhood has contacted May 20, 2021 Page 47 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) Germain numerous times, and their answer is, we don't direct the carriers who drop off the cars. So not only do you have 30,000 cars or 20,000 cars going through intersection -- mind you it's an activity center -- they're -- these people don't know. So it's already an unsafe condition, okay. What I'm saying to you is, you need to look at a median that separates out the traffic. There should have been a median a long time ago when they built the two. The applicant has asked the county in a separate process, a Site Development Plan, to approve the turn lanes and sidewalks, bike shoulders. That's in a separate application. And, in fact, when I went to the neighborhood information meeting and the applicant themselves mentioned this Site Development Plan, the staff member at the county said, stop, we can't go into that. That's something down the road. Well, you have to go into it because it's part of the PUD language that you are approving today, which is right-in, right-out. So you have to figure -- and I'm telling you the people up at Wiggins Pass, though they may not be here, in fact, they know this is an extremely risky situation, okay. So we're relying on you. The turn lanes would help to go in. But with the turn lanes and the compensating right-of-way, what you will find is right now, as it's been built, the sidewalk is only, like, five feet off of Wiggins Pass Road. So you have dual lanes coming. There is no setback to the current sidewalk that's there. So when they put their turn lanes, how are they going to put the sidewalk to make it safe for the pedestrians? That's got to be a consideration. The landscape deviation. I'm not in favor of reducing a 20-foot at an activity center. We at Wiggins Pass have a neighborhood, and we like the aesthetics. I understand why they need to do it, okay, but this -- I don't know how many acres. It might be 34 acres. So why would you reduce the buffer to a big plaza like this? So please consider that. The signage that they are suggesting out at Wiggins Pass and 41, originally they had a main sign, at that second main entrance and also at 41, so there were two main signs, and those signs are big. They're regulated. They took down the one sign on Wiggins Pass Road, and now there isn't one. So I can understand having it at the corner of Wiggins Pass and 41. But I don't know if they're planning to put another big sign on Wiggins Pass, meaning three large signs. Most developments have them at the main entrance, or they'll have it at the intersection corner. Question would be, could you do a smaller sign at one location and not have the -- I don't know how tall they are, but they're a regular plaza sign, okay. Mike Sawyer, the transportation person, I directly e-mailed him a few months ago, and I said, is it your requirement in the PUD that the developer do the turn lanes and make it right-in, right-out, and he said -- I said, is the reason because of safety? Why are you doing that? And he said, yes, we are making the developer do that. But at the same time in the e-mail he said; however, it's the policing powers of the county to decide whether or not they will put a median or do any of that and that we don't put it in the PUD language, okay. Now, I've been involved with PUD amendments for many, many years. In fact, with this one, 20 years ago or 15 years ago, there's specificity in that the developer had to build turn lanes off of 41. There's a turn -- there's actually two turn lanes, one to the main and one to the middle, and that was in the PUD. It was very specific. I'm not sure why one would go away from that. If you feel it's a safety issue and, in fact, this landowner should put those turn lanes -- and to be honest with you, it's already in there. It was from the original. But the way they did the turn lane was they said, well, we'll make two lanes go around the corner, and that northern lane will be the one that is considered the turn lane in. So imagine you driving around the corner and you're in the northbound, and you don't realize that in order to go west you've got to get in the southbound, because eventually it goes into one lane. So you're in this second, and you stop, and it confuses the traffic that's coming out of the May 20, 2021 Page 48 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) plaza. It wants to turn right going out towards 41, and a lot of times the older folks -- and I mean that with respect -- they'll drive right into that second lane, and you have to stop, okay. So this is a section of road -- and in activity centers, many times you have medians. I can point to Immokalee/111, where there's a McDonald's and the Walmart. In fact, at that corner is a median that I cannot come out of the plaza. I have to go down to the Walgreens -- or the Walmart entrance way down, and be able to turn. It stops that traffic pattern, and it makes it safer, okay. I just want you-all to understand that the residents of Wiggins Pass might support a third entrance, but we're not going to be supportive of the safety issues if you do not do something on this straightaway, and I say that with all sincerity. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right, sir. Thank you very much. I'm going to want to hear from Mr. Hatton and Ms. Gundlach or staff but first, before that, does any commissioner wish to ask a question of the gentleman who just spoke? COMMISSIONER FRY: I did. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please. Would you return, sir. COMMISSIONER FRY: The podium right here. Just making sure I understand. I see looking at it, with the information I have, pluses -- maybe a positive and a negative to you. A positive being that you have two lanes, and the right one is a turn lane, and now you'll have three lanes and the right one will be a turn lane. So you'll actually have two lanes going straight. MR. FEE: Yep. COMMISSIONER FRY: Of course, you will have to merge, I'm sure. It still will go down to one, but you won't be competing in that second lane with the turn traffic. MR. FEE: I totally agree. COMMISSIONER FRY: So to me that would be a plus. MR. FEE: Yep. COMMISSIONER FRY: So I'm also sensitive to the fact that you think a median would be important to ensure and cement the safety benefit from a right-in, right-out. MR. FEE: Yep. COMMISSIONER FRY: Correct? MR. FEE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRY: The buffer -- I guess they're giving up some land for the turn lane, so they want to put the same amount of vegetation in a narrow buffer which, I guess that aesthetically affects you a little bit but not functionally the way the traffic moves, correct? MR. FEE: Not a deal killer. COMMISSIONER FRY: Not a deal killer, okay. MR. FEE: Not a deal killer. COMMISSIONER FRY: I just wanted to make sure I have an accurate understanding of your perceptions of how this whole thing works. MR. FEE: Yep. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is that accurate? MR. FEE: And if you don't mind, can I just give to the court reporter these pictures so they can be submitted? CHAIRMAN FRYER: You may. COMMISSIONER FRY: Sure. MR. FEE: Okay. I just have one more picture to give. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And stand down, sir, but don't go too far, because we might want you to speak again. Mr. Hatton, go ahead. MR. HATTON: Yes. And I appreciate all the information and, certainly, we had a really good conversation with Doug as part of the neighborhood information meeting. So some of May 20, 2021 Page 49 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) these -- just like, Commissioner, you had mentioned in terms of where -- and I think this hopefully is a very good diagram of, again, the two lanes that are now headed westbound enable -- which I think was a big, you know, part of the improvements -- those dual northbound lefts to now travel in a through lane, and if you are going into the actual development, you now can just easily move into the right-turn lane. So that was a big improvement. But this also addresses, you know, the issue of the median, and that is being proposed. Now, Kellie can address why it's not officially in this language, but it is being proposed. We've got plans that we're already doing, so it's going to be done just as the turn lanes are going to be done. So that safety issue in terms of right-in, right-out where it's being positioned because of the traffic, when you have a right-in, right-out, if you put one in and you do a deceleration lane, you basically -- again, we're enhancing the safety or moving the turn lanes out of the -- or the turning vehicles out of the through lane. So that's what we're doing here. So hopefully this graphic can show it a little. And I can answer any other questions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So it's going to take some time for a median to be put in and, in the meantime, what do we do for safety? MR. HATTON: I mean, from a perspective, I'm not sure exactly of the timing of all of this with the PDI and stuff like that. MS. CLARK: Yeah. The median would be put in at the same time as that eastern entrance. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, okay. MS. CLARK: So these improvement plans that are shown here, they're the proposed plans that would occur if we get approval of this third entrance, and it shows the right-turn lanes in as well as that median, and that would all occur at once. So the third entrance will not be constructed without these additional improvements, because we agree those are safety concerns and that they need to be addressed to be able to -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good. Good. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ms. Gundlach, you, our staff. Is Mr. Sawyer here? MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, he is. CHAIRMAN FRYER: My main concern, sir, is safety issues, but speak to whatever you would like to speak to. MR. SAWYER: Yeah. For the record, Mike Sawyer, Transportation Planning. We have worked with the applicant on both the turn lanes as well as the other, as you're requesting, the safety concerns. The reason that you have the turn lane specifically spelled out in the PUD language is because those are what we were actually looking for. When you add an access point to an existing PUD, what makes part of the requirement for a PUD amendment is if you're increasing access points, which is what's being proposed. So in a nutshell, one of the reasons that this is coming in as an amendment as opposed to an insubstantial change is because they're adding the access. That's why we've got -- again, that's why we've got the language that outlines the turn lanes. As far as a median separator in this particular area, that requires an operational analysis, and that comes in with the SDP itself to make sure that we're looking at the entire operation of the improvements being proposed. We certainly don't have any problem. In fact, we would certainly endorse having the median separator in there. You're so close to 41 in this location, and we do know that we do have challenges in this particular intersection. We would want to have that median separator to prevent any left-outs at the first access point. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So you're satisfied that what we have before us will be May 20, 2021 Page 50 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) safe? MR. SAWYER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER FRY: And you're able to look Mr. Fee in the eye and say, you'll have your median when these improvements are made? MR. SAWYER: I can look anybody in the eye and say, yes, it will happen. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just a question. Are you comfortable with, on that drawing, the location of the median? Is it long enough? I see the service entrance still is left-out. If you're coming out of that entrance with a truck, you can still take a left, right, which I assume is why the median stops short of that entrance? MR. SAWYER: Correct. And you also have the middle access point which is the full opening. That also is -- you don't want to have the median in that location; otherwise, you would be forcing all of the traffic to go west instead of allowing potentially some of that traffic to go back east again. Hopefully that makes sense. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry, do you have something? COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, it just looks like there is a -- am I seeing a driveway from the south right at the right edge of the median that could go left or right? Am I interpreting that correctly? MR. FEE: That's Germain. COMMISSIONER FRY: That's Germain. So that's actually -- is that a painted stripe to the right of the median? Is that just simply a marking on the road? MR. SAWYER: I believe that's the case currently, yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. So someone could exit Germain and make a left turn across the eastbound lanes to go west on Wiggins Pass. MR. SAWYER: To go west, yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. Sawyer. Any other public speakers? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any persons who are present who haven't signed up but wish to be heard on this matter, now would be the time. (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: If not, Planning Commission, are we ready to close public comment? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Public comment is closed. And we will deliberate. Who would like to start? COMMISSIONER FRY: I will. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please. COMMISSIONER FRY: So I think -- for Mr. Fee, I mean, I think when people come and speak at these meetings -- you said you've done this before -- you know, you want to hear that you're listened to and not just discarded and the residents' and the neighbors' viewpoints don't matter. And so I think from my standpoint, definitely, I came from a neighborhood association, so I do want to listen. But when I look at all the facts here, it seems to me that this is actually a safer system for you and a more efficient system for you, the residents to the west, because now you have two lanes to go straight, and the turn lanes are segregated, and you will have a median. I think we've established that. So I guess I'm -- and I don't know if you can -- I don't feel like there are any May 20, 2021 Page 51 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) major unaddressed issues that you presented that have not been addressed through this -- through this presentation, and I don't know what you're holding up there, but -- MR. FEE: Just language. COMMISSIONER FRY: Just the language. Oh, okay. Your concern was the language of the timing of the median, I believe. Can we clean that up? CHAIRMAN FRYER: It sounds like the median will go in at the same time that the right-in, right-out goes in. COMMISSIONER FRY: But according to Mike, that's part of the SDP, not the PUD? Can we address his concerns with the language in this in a way that is not out of character with the process? CHAIRMAN FRYER: We can throw a condition in to that effect. MR. SAWYER: What will be required as part of SDP -- because they'll need to get that SDP done as soon as the PUD amendment is finished and approved. They'll need to do the SDP. Part of the SDP requires a right-of-way permit. That right-of-way permit will require all of those improvements to be done at the same time; otherwise, the access itself won't be able to be opened. COMMISSIONER FRY: Are you telling us that there is no need -- no point in adding a condition at this point simply stipulating that the median will go in at the same time as the improvements? MR. SAWYER: I don't believe so, but perhaps Matt McLean would want to weigh in on that from the SDP standpoint. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: Oh, Jesus, just put it in. CHAIRMAN FRYER: What? MR. KLATZKOW: Just put it in, and we're done. COMMISSIONER FRY: When Jeff speaks, I tend to listen. So how about we just put it in? CHAIRMAN FRYER: We'll just add that condition, if you don't mind. MR. SAWYER: Not a problem by me. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you, Jeff. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. McLean, did you want to be heard? MR. McLEAN: Matt McLean, director of Development Review. It's very easy if you guys, as Jeff said, put that condition in that at the first Site Development Plan all this will be taken into consideration and put in that permit. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Very good. COMMISSIONER FRY: Jeff, if you just spoke up earlier at every meeting, we'd be out of here by noon every day. MR. KLATZKOW: But I like your company so much. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'd entertain a motion at this point. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'll move that we approve for transmittal. Oh, not -- it's a PUD, correct? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, it's a PUD. COMMISSIONER FRY: I move for approval with the additional condition that the median be part that -- the median be implemented at the same time as the improvements. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Further discussion? (No response.) May 20, 2021 Page 52 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you, applicant. THE COURT REPORTER: I didn't hear Commissioner Klucik. MR. BELLOWS: Is Mr. Klucik participating this afternoon? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh. Commissioner Klucik, did you vote on that, sir? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. Okay. It's unanimous. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. ***All right. The next two applications are companions under the heading of Blue Coral. And I'm not sure if it's Blue Coral or Coral Blue, so my first question is going to be, which do you want to be? Because I saw it both ways in the material. These are companion items. PL20190001620, the small-scale Growth Management Plan, and that's here for transmittal and adoption, and its companion PL20190001600, which is an RPUDZ. So, Mr. Wright, let me first ask, if there are any persons who are wishing to be heard in this matter, please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Disclosures from the Planning Commission starting with Mr. Eastman. MR. EASTMAN: No disclosures. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER FRY: Ditto. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Staff materials, meetings with staff, and communications with the applicant. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And I spoke to Mr. -- I spoke to Patrick, Greg, and Jeff. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Staff materials, staff meeting. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Commissioner. Mr. Wright, you have the floor. MR. WRIGHT: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. I'm Jeff Wright with the Henderson Franklin law firm here on behalf of the applicant. We have our team with us. With the applicant representative, Gregg Fusaro is here; Patrick Vanasse with RWA is our planner; we have Ciprian with Trebilcock; and Bethany Brosius with Passarella here today. We are here seeking your recommendation of approval of an application to rezone property from ag to residential PUD to allow the construction of an apartment complex with 280 units on 9.35 acres. The property is on the south side of Immokalee Road east of the Livingston Road intersection about 2,500 feet from I-75, and it's between commercial uses to the east, along with I-75, and residential uses to the west. There's a look at the situation of the adjacent properties. You see that Bermuda Palms, that's a residential development to the west, and Germain, the auto dealership, to the east. We have reviewed the staff reports, and we agree with their recommendations of approval. There's two staff reports, obviously, because we have companion items. Staff is recommending approval on both. We agree with them. We agree with all the conditions of approval that they've May 20, 2021 Page 53 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) proposed, and we're not proposing any deviations from the LDC. But as to the Growth Management Plan amendment, we do agree with staff's recommendation of approval, but there's one very important point of disagreement I want to highlight, and that's the density. Growth management staff's recommendation related to the density is 20 units an acre, and our project as proposed is 30 units an acre. So there's a delta there. Even though they're recommending approval, we are off on that number. So we have recently talked to staff today, and we're trying to reach a point that we can get an agreement with them on that density number. And one thing that came up today is, as proposed and as it's presented in the staff report right now, there would be 10 out of the 280 units devoted to low-income housing. We've since bumped that number up by 350 percent to 35 would be dedicated to low, 80 percent or below AMI. So we have 35 units that we're willing to commit to low, 80 percent or less, and 35 additional affordable units between 80 and 100 percent of AMI. So that is something that we just presented to staff today, and I wanted to make clear on the front end that the numbers that you see, we're willing to make a greater commitment than is maybe written in front of you today. CHAIRMAN FRYER: May I ask you to repeat the second 35? MR. WRIGHT: Yes, sir. The second 35 would be that AMI between 80 percent and 100 percent of AMI. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. WRIGHT: So together, 35 plus 35 is 70. That's a quarter of the project with a firm commitment to affordable, less than 100 percent of the AMI. Now, staff -- right now there's an LDC amendment going through relating to density in interchange activity centers, and this is very close to an activity center, and Patrick will get into some of that. But it's literally one parcel away from the activity center. So the new LDC amendments that are coming through would allow for 25 units per acre. Like I said, we're looking for 30; staff's saying 20. We feel like being so close to this activity center is a real plus for us because there's an LDC amendment in the works to change the number to 25 there. And, obviously, it's -- there's some hoops you have to jump through to get that maximum number. But that's kind of what's guiding us. Really important, we feel that the unique location of the project -- it's close to I-75. There's a smooth -- what we're proposing is a smooth graduation of intensity as you go from the residential to the intersection of I-75. So we have, as you can see from this picture, apartments, residential to west and commercial to the east. And as you got closer to the highway it gets more intense, and as you get farther away from the highway, as we're proposing it, it would get less intense. And we would be, essentially, the buffer between Germain, the commercial, and the existing residential. The property right now is vacant. And it's always possible that somebody could come in there and put commercial. We feel like our project is more compatible with the neighbors, particularly to the west where there's residential. And we always hear about the demand for housing, and the market's been crazy over the last year or so, as we all know. We feel like this project meets a critical demand for housing. We've heard Naples and Collier County say that a lot of their employees get on the highway and move up to Lee County or live in Lee County because they can't afford to live here. So this does meet a critical demand for housing, a commitment to affordable housing, and we'll put housing within reach for essential services personnel. We also have a commitment for all of those 70 affordable units to be offered to essential services personnel, put the housing within reach for lower income residents, and will allow Collier workers to stay in Collier. As I mentioned, I have Patrick and our team with me today. Patrick's going to focus on the planning considerations. And I'll turn it over to him next. We also have Bethany Brosius for our environmental issues; Ciprian with traffic; and Gregg, our project manager, is here to address May 20, 2021 Page 54 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) the project itself and economics, if that does come up and if there are any questions in relation to that. We appreciate the opportunity to be here, and I'll -- at this point I'll turn it over to Patrick. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Questions for Mr. Wright. Commissioner Shea first. Sorry. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just -- I'm looking at, what is the density of the Bermuda Palms? MR. WRIGHT: Between 10 and 11 units per acre. COMMISSIONER SHEA: And what's the density of Windsong Apartments? MR. WRIGHT: We have this all on a chart. 16.8 for Bermuda Palms. MR. VANASSE: Windsong. MR. WRIGHT: Windsong, excuse me, 16.8, sir. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So you're not really transitioning to a higher density back towards the activity center. You're actually reversing it. You're going to a higher density as you move away from the activity center. MR. WRIGHT: Well, there's no residential up to where we're proposing. So the idea there was it's commercial -- the highway, you have a bunch of commercial, and then you have us, and then you have those two residential to the west of us. If that answers your question. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I think it's more of an observation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: So did staff concur with 25 as a compromise, or where are you at with that discussion? MR. WRIGHT: Well, I'm encouraged by how it went, but I don't want to speak for them. I think there's probably a pretty good chance, if we're willing to put that commitment in writing, that they would be willing to change their number, but I don't want speak for them -- Michele to make that call. COMMISSIONER FRY: The justification for 30 units or 25 is what? MR. WRIGHT: Well, originally -- COMMISSIONER FRY: The affordable housing, is that -- MR. WRIGHT: Pretty much. You know, we could say it's good planning and the graduation of uses, but the bottom line here -- and we've heard this before -- that in order to get an increased density, you've got to give up something. You've got to provide a public benefit. And so what we did, between yesterday and today, is we focused specifically on that public benefit we were looking to provide, and we fattened it up, and hopefully that will be enough to make staff and the commission pleased with our project. COMMISSIONER FRY: What if you only got approval for 20 or 25 units, what would that do to your affordable housing commitment? Would it still be 25 percent of the total units? Is that the idea? MR. WRIGHT: Well, we're willing to, you know, work within this process as it goes along. For example, if you just recommended approval at 20, we would probably -- we would probably move forward with that and continue to seek a higher number, but really, in order to make the project economics work, we've really tweaked all the numbers in the different categories of AMI to make it work. It's pretty close and we don't -- 20 -- 20 won't work. Thirty is the number that everything that we've done for the last two years has been based on, and 30 is the number that our affordable commitment is based on. So unless we have some sort of a major change, that's really what we're looking to do, 30. If you were to recommend approval of 25, we would move straight ahead, and we would be very happy to get your recommendation of approval in any event. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Wright, there's a 30-day provision that would be offered to May 20, 2021 Page 55 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) the certain categories of tenants. Would you be willing to consider 60? MR. WRIGHT: Is that the one where the essential services personnel are given the offer first? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, yeah. MR. WRIGHT: I am -- I'd be willing to consider that. This is -- I want to pull up the specific language that they had in the staff recommendation. And this is just for your reference. I'm reading from Packet Page 1261 where it says there's an essential services personnel commitment, and it says in the event that no ESP rents available within 30 days of advertisement of its availability, then it's offered to non-ESPs. Is that the -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's the provision I'm talking about, yeah. MR. WRIGHT: And I'm not -- I'm going to ask Gregg real quick, if I may. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go right ahead. MR. WRIGHT: It's not a showstopper, but we'd like to, you know, be able to advertise before we open to make sure that we get a jump on that if we are going to give a 60-day window. CHAIRMAN FRYER: What do the other members of the Planning Commission think about an increased period of time? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I think 60 days is kind of too long, when you're a rental, to wait. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Other thoughts? MR. EASTMAN: It's certainly appreciated by the school district, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Could we -- could we close it out at 45 days? MR. WRIGHT: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any objections from the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. MR. VANASSE: Good afternoon. For the record, Patrick Vanasse with RWA. It's a pleasure to be here to talk about this project with you. We're excited about this project for several reasons. One of the things is, it's providing a unique new offering to this market. They're providing rental apartments that are a very high quality, and the level of amenities that they're providing within this complex is above and beyond anything I've seen locally. And we have pictures of projects, one that they just finished building in Orlando, and you'll see the great pictures of the amenities that they do provide. So they're providing a high-quality property, but you've got a private market-rate developer coming forward and making a commitment, a solid commitment to provide true affordable housing. And what I mean by true affordable housing is a lot of the projects we see in Collier County when they're asking for additional density tend to be what we call gap or workforce housing, and those tend to be 100 percent of AMI or above. And what is being offered here is affordable housing that falls within the moderate and low categories. So, again, a private developer coming forward with no government subsidies and making that commitment. And, again, it's a very site specific Comp Plan amendment, very site specific rezone with a lot of detail. So this is not going to be speculative. We're not asking for multiple use. It's not going to change. We're only asking for multifamily rental units. So from that standpoint, we think it's a great project. We also think the location is an ideal location. And what I mean by that is if you look at that quadrant of this activity center, this is the last remaining 10 acres that are undeveloped or unentitled. And we know exactly what's in that area and what to expect. We know that next door to us on the east is going to be a Germain car dealership approved for up to 60 feet. We also know that you've got intense commercial activity where the Walmart center is. There's a hotel there. There's a self-storage there. And we are creating that transition between higher intensity May 20, 2021 Page 56 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) commercial and lower intensity residential. And, again, I don't think it's all that important that we look at the exact number of density. It's more of we've got an apartment use that fits really well between commercial and residential and creates that transition. And we've worked very hard to develop a site plan and to develop a building that creates the biggest setbacks that we can, that minimizes the massing and is at a scale and at an architectural look and feel that is in keeping with the area and fits well with the area. We're asking for a maximum of four stories. Staff has asked us to reduce the overall height, the actual height to 50 feet. When we started this project, we had no architects, we had no engineers that had actually looked at ground elevation, how much fill would be needed, how much of a box we would need to fit those four stories. We have done that in the last few months. We know that we can fit within the 50 feet, so we are pleased to say, yes, we can accept that condition. And also with regards to density, some of the comments that were made, the reason why we went from what we were initially offering to what we have offered now is we talked to staff and we talked to some of the Planning Commission members. We were asked to revisit that. The pro formas that the applicant put together were six months to a year old, and they were really looking more so at the construction costs escalating and what they could possibly do. But what they've done just in the last week is go back and look at other rental communities close by and what those rents were, and they've been amazed at how quickly the rents have gone up elsewhere at, you know, 10 to 15 percent increases. So what that does for them is the portion that is not affordable, that they're not setting aside for affordable, that's where they can make a nicer margin and then provide more affordable. But the only way the amount of affordable works is predicated on that 30 units per acre. Anything less than 30 units per acre makes it that they can provide less of that affordable. So that's why, even though staff is recommending 25 -- and we're very happy -- well, I'm not going to speak for them. I think -- I think we have support from them at 25, I will say -- we'd still like to pursue 30 because, again, the more we get on the density, the more affordable we can provide, and there's a direct relation there. So that is -- that is why we're going to keep asking for the 30, and we think there's some enormous benefits from quality of project and also the affordable housing component. And as you'll see from the pictures, when we're talking about the quality of project, I would like to talk about the project a little bit. So it's luxury apartments. They're going to very well-appointed units, highly amenitized, parking garage on site. They are targeting young professionals and empty nesters. The units tend to be smaller units but of a much higher quality so they can still get the rents that they would like, but it's a smaller envelope, and it allows them also to keep their buildings at a scale that is appropriate for the area where they can keep the buildings a little smaller. We think it's a great location. And when we started this, the intent was to try to look at what the ULI housing study had put forward and to develop a project that was consistent with some of those recommendations. And the ULI study talks about finding appropriate places along major thoroughfares, activity centers. So these -- we're just outside an existing interchange activity center. So if we look at landscape-wide for Collier County, those nodes are the nodes that we've identified as the areas where we see the highest intensities and densities in the county. The infrastructure's there, the roadway system is there, and we've identified those areas as mixed use. So people that buy there or live there know that these are mixed-use activity centers. Higher intensity, higher density is expected. So we think that's a great location. It's right by I-75, provides easy access for Southwest Florida, and we believe that location, again, with this idea that we're an infill project in an area May 20, 2021 Page 57 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) where we know exactly what the uses are around, it makes it where it's a great location. So some of the GMP amendments and LDC amendments related to housing affordability that are going to be coming forward, staff has taken some of the ULI recommendations. And ULI was recommending possibly up to 30 units per acre, and the ULI folks have seen this in resort communities throughout the U.S. that, yes, you need higher densities for market-rate developers to be willing to build and offer affordable housing. So those experts provided 30. The recommendation right now that staff is putting forward is 25. But the 25 would apply to all activity centers throughout the county, and some activity centers may have more residential, a little less diversity when it comes to commercial, maybe a little less intensity. This one is a major interchange. We know exactly what's there. So while 25 units per acre in some places might be more appropriate, we think that this one, knowing exactly what those uses are and what the compatibility issues are, I think it's an appropriate place for 30 units per acre. And the other thing is, as you went through your hearing this morning about the rural fringe, these amendments sometimes take a very long time to be heard and get approved. You have someone today willing to make that commitment. So moving on, I'll talk about compatibility issues. I'll try to keep it brief. I know that our biggest issue here is density. But I do want to touch upon the design and the compatibility concerns. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go right ahead. MR. VANASSE: So as I said, when it comes to the quality and the luxury, these were renderings that were in the application when we started the project. You'll see we have pictures of the actual built project in Lake Mary outside of Orlando, and the final product is even better than the renderings are. But this is a level of amenity, as you can see, dog park, high-quality finishes in the units, internal/external recreation, gyms, that type of activity. This just touches upon the ULI study. And one of the things that I want to point out is when it comes to housing affordability, ULI makes a very important point that transportation combined with price of housing is crucial. And you've all heard about driving to qualify, that type of thing. So being in a good area close to transit is very important. Walmart has a transit stop. The regional park, very close by, has another big transit spot right there. So we have shopping, we have services, we have recreation, we have all the amenities close by, which will promote walkability and transit use. This was the initial commitment. As Jeff mentioned, we are upping this, and the full 70 units would be in the affordable category. That talks about the unique location that we have. Again, infill project, very site specific. This does not set a precedent for other properties throughout the county. Another important issue that we are proposing is when it comes to transportation, we've done our TIS, we have no significant impact on the adjacent roadway system. But what we've done is we've teamed up with Germain next door, and we're providing one access point for both projects, limiting the curb cuts and access points along Immokalee, creating a safer configuration having one turn lane for both projects, that type of thing. One thing that I'd like to point out also is the folks at Bermuda Palms, we're showing a potential interconnection. That's completely up to them if they want that connection or not. We think it could be a benefit to the residents because we're going to have a frontage road leading to Juliet Street [sic] and leading to the commercial activity center there so they wouldn't have to go back onto Immokalee to just go for errands, or when it comes to going west, they could go straight to Juliet Street where it's a signalized intersection to get to Immokalee and go west. So we think it's a great benefit. One thing that we hadn't committed to in our writeup or our application initially, and it's a May 20, 2021 Page 58 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) no brainer for us, is that if they want to connect, we'll make -- they can make that a gated access point, and it can be one way. So none of our traffic would use their entrance, but they could completely go through our project and use that frontage road all the way to the Walmart Super Center, for example. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Vanasse, do you know how far along Germain is? Have they broken ground? MR. VANASSE: I drive by it. The only thing I can tell you is I haven't seen anything driving by. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. MR. VANASSE: Next slide shows that frontage road. So as you can see in blue, the gray area is our subject property showing the building footprint, and that frontage road crosses our property, crosses the future Germain auto dealer, connects to Useppa and goes to Juliet Street. Juliet is where the signalized intersection is. So not only is that going to create a better configuration for traffic, but it's also going to promote bike/ped activity. All these folks, once they come home, if they need to run a quick errand or if they want to go to Seed to Table to have a drink and have dinner, they can easily walk there or bike there. Again, I think that's a great benefit to our transportation system. We promote that, but we see very little of that in Collier County. And, again, you're seeing private developers willing to do the right thing and commit to this. COMMISSIONER FRY: Patrick, can you leave that slide up for a second. A couple questions. MR. VANASSE: Sure. COMMISSIONER FRY: So the access road you're showing, looking at your property, you actually showed going up to Immokalee and then back down to connect to Germain, but you don't really have to do that, correct? MR. VANASSE: So our access point is right here, if you see my cursor. COMMISSIONER FRY: Yeah. MR. VANASSE: That's a joint access point. We're showing that should Bermuda Palms want to connect, this is their access point. They could connect through our project and make it all the way to Juliet Street. COMMISSIONER FRY: So they can -- where that line goes across your -- that line right there, that goes right ahead into Germain's property? MR. VANASSE: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. All right. That was Question No. 1. Question No. 2, is there a crosswalk at Livingston to go north across Immokalee Road to Seed to Table? You mentioned it's easy for them to get there, but that's six lanes plus -- MR. VANASSE: The easiest thing in my mind would be to cross at Juliet, go to the other side of the road. COMMISSIONER FRY: Then walk back? MR. VANASSE: Then walk along the northern side along the canal. I'm not exactly sure what the crosswalk configuration is there. Maybe transportation staff would know, or Ciprian. There's a -- so Ciprian, who's our transportation consultant, will answer the question. I think he's saying there is a crosswalk. MR. MALAESCU: Good afternoon. Ciprian Malaescu, Trebilcock Consulting Solutions. There is a crosswalk -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Can you speak into the microphone? MR. MALAESCU: I'm sorry. There's a crosswalk over there. It's a signal at Livingston and Immokalee Road, signalized intersection. May 20, 2021 Page 59 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: What was your name again, sir? MR. MALAESCU: Ciprian Malaescu. MR. VANASSE: So he works with Norm Trebilcock. Norm, unfortunately, this week is out of the area. So Ciprian has decided to chip in and help us out, and if you've got some more transportation questions, he can address those. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. MR. MALAESCU: Thank you. MR. VANASSE: So when it comes to density, again, I think, you know, I made it clear that it's crucial for the provision of affordable housing and also to provide the quality project that they want to provide. But when it comes to density -- and as planners we talk about this all the time -- that people react to form, and what I mean by that is how buildings look, the scale, the aesthetics, and they don't necessarily react to numbers. So if you tell someone 16 units per acre or 20 or 30 units per acre, it's such a nebulous term that people have trouble understanding what that means. And every project is a little different. So sometimes you're going to get a little more open space or you're going to get a little more landscaping, and people are really swayed by the aesthetics and the feel and how it looks. So there's a lot of things that we can do to make a project compatible and to basically mitigate for our density and our intensity of use. So, obviously, the aesthetics are important, the massing is important, and what we've done with this building -- and I've got an exhibit showing that -- is we've broken up the building where it faces Bermuda Palms creating courtyards so they don't see one big, massive building. They see just kind of the ends of some of the wings, and they see a lot more landscaping, a lot more courtyard, greenery, and the recreational areas. We've also enhanced the buffer. So where we abut residential, we enhanced the buffer along Bermuda Palms. And where we abut Livingston Lakes on our backside, that's where we've located our preserve, and that's 100 feet -- 150 feet wide plus or minus, which creates a significant buffer. So the setbacks, the buffering, the aesthetics are all things that we really considered, and I'll go into that with some exhibits. And then the other thing was, I've got this slide kind of showing that, you know, we've got higher-density projects in Collier County. We don't have a ton of them, but we have them. And typically those higher-density projects are from existing larger planned -- PUDs where there was some density left over and they clustered it, and they typically clustered it along a major thoroughfare, and that came on the tail end of the project. But what I've got here is pictures of Orchid Run. It's been an extremely successful project. This is the -- it's a residential rental multifamily project that I believe, from the applicant's research, has probability the highest rents right now in Collier County, and it's higher density, it's clustered density that was part of the PUD, and it's very attractive and very popular. But we've got other examples. Bayfront, Naples Square, Magnolia Square, Addie's Corner, and Mooring Parks at Grey Oaks. And I know that Mooring Parks at Grey Oaks is assisted living mostly, so that's a bit of a different animal. But I'm sure you've all driven by it. With the right landscaping and the right architecture, it's a great looking project, and it's a benefit to this community. So this is what I meant by the massing and where we've located the building. So as you can see, we put the majority of the building as close as we could to our eastern boundary, really, where that's where the commercial use is and the more intense use, to provide separation, as much separation as we could to the residential. And then we've broken up the building where we provide courtyards, and there in the May 20, 2021 Page 60 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) middle is a parking garage, and the parking garage is going to be lower than the rest of the building. The parking garage is going to be three stories. The rest of the building is four stories. So we've very carefully designed this, and we provided those enhanced buffers. And just to give you some examples here, with the current LDC, I believe that required buffers between industrial and residential use with straight zoning is 50-foot setbacks. And on here, I think the closest we have from a separation to a residential building is 190 feet. And our setback on our property, we have 80 feet. So they have some space on their side, and we have space on our side, but we far exceed any code requirements. And if you look where we abut Livingston Lakes, where our preserve is on the backside, we have over 270 feet to the closest residence. So we've put a lot of care into making this compatible. And as staff indicated in their staff report, they feel that from a compatibility standpoint we're pretty much there. They just wanted to reduce the height, and we've agreed to that. We can reduce the height. So from that standpoint, we think we have staff support from a compatibility standpoint. We've gone through great efforts to make it compatible from a design standpoint. So we think it's in keeping with the area. It's not going to impact the neighbors. And the 30 units per acre, again, being 25 units per acre or being 30 units per acre is not going to change the way the building looks or how it feels. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Patrick, I can appreciate the U-shaped buildings and what impact that -- how that minimizes impact to the Bermuda Palms people. Can you go back one slide? MR. VANASSE: Yep. COMMISSIONER FRY: In the center you mentioned it's a parking garage. I mean, either that's the top level of a parking garage, or that is a parking lot. It looks to me like it's a parking lot. MR. VANASSE: It's the top level. COMMISSIONER FRY: That's the top level. So that's actually a solid building there. So they do see a solid structure throughout the entire center of that -- of your development. Do you have elevations showing what they would see from there? MR. VANASSE: Not from that side. We do -- I believe I may have had. In your packet -- I don't have it as a slide, but in your packet, we have a rendering that was taken from this Lake Mary project that has a parking garage as part of it. So in that packet -- and I think I put a note on there that that would be subject to change, and the design would be slightly different for this project. But that rendering kind of gives you a bit of a feel of what that parking garage would look like. So -- and I'm not going to belabor this. I can go back to any of those line-of-sights exhibits. But we looked at the massing and the size of our project versus other projects, the separation, the distance. Again, I think from a massing standpoint, we fit in very well. We create a good transition. The only thing to point out is adjacent to us on the eastern side, we have vegetation here. That's going to be that auto dealership at 60 feet. So -- and we dropped down to 50. And then from a line-of-sight, this is from Livingston Lakes. What this line-of-sight rendering shows you is that they should just see our preserve and not see our building on the other side. This is from Carlton Lakes across Immokalee. Closest homes are at about 630 feet, I believe, away. Again, very long distance. They're going to see a lot of roadway, median landscaping, and they might get a glimpse of our top -- the top of our project. And keep in mind, all those renderings were done at maximum 60-foot actual height, which, again, that's going to be May 20, 2021 Page 61 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) brought down to 50 feet. And this, the closest folks to us is Bermuda Palms, and this is a rendering from Bermuda Palms. Again, as I mentioned, we kept as much separation as we could from them. We're providing that enhanced buffer. We talked to staff about looking at existing vegetation along the boundary and trying to save some of the mature trees that are there. That's certainly something we'll go back and look and talk to our environmental and engineering folks, but trying to keep as much of that mature vegetation as we can. I've got -- the two next slides are just associated with trip data but, basically, unless you've got questions, I'm just going to go real quickly through those. The TIS conclusion is we have no significant impact on the roadway system and that for most segments we actually have a de minimus impact and that our project will not negatively affect Immokalee in front of our project. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anybody want to hear more about traffic? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. VANASSE: So with that being said, I'll turn things over to the applicant. He will tell you a little bit about what their intent is, why they do this, what they have to contend with when it comes to cost and market demand, and he'll show you that great project in Orlando that I mentioned. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. MR. FUSARO: Good afternoon. I know you guys have been here a long time. I appreciate the time. My name is Gregg Fusaro. I'm with Capital Investment Group. I'm a partner with the company. We're actually headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, but we've realized over the last few years that it's a lot nicer here in the winter. So that's why we've been actually focused on a lot of different developments in different Florida markets. I wanted to let you know a couple of things about us is that we are generally -- we build, we develop, we own and manage our assets. So, historically, we have been long-term holders of properties, and we manage everything that we build. So it's us. It's not -- we don't turn it over to a third party. We manage all of our assets. More recently, we have sold some properties just because the market has -- the markets have been just crazy. But historically, we put long-term debt on our properties, and we hold them for the long-term. I just wanted to point out a couple of things, I think, and that is that one of the exercises that we've been going through in the last few days related to affordability, and the reason that we're able to kind of upgrade the number of units that we can provide at a lower -- to lower median incomes is based on just kind of continually researching what's going on in the marketplace, and what's happening here is that because of the lack of supply, rental rates across the board, but particularly in the higher end, which almost everybody has to build today, those rates have gone up extreme -- I mean, I was shocked at how quickly they've gone up. And one of the ways to work with that supply-and-demand issue, if the supply continues to be limited, demand continues to go up, which is happening in this market, prices have to go up. If you add some more supply, it will have a mitigating effect on overall rental rates. We've seen that in Cincinnati in a big way, not necessarily for the good of folks like us who have properties and modeled certain rents, and we've seen those rents, you know, go up very quickly and then kind of tail back down as more and more product has come on the market. So in our urban core downtown, we had rents that, in some new projects three or four years ago, started out about $1.90 a square foot and ramped up to about 2.30 a square foot, and everybody thought, well, gee whiz, I can come in and do that, too, and get those rents. Well, the additional supply has actually pushed rents back down, and so that average now is around 2.05 a square foot, so it has mitigated because of the additional supply. May 20, 2021 Page 62 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) In terms of this site and this location, one of the reasons that it's -- it's great, not only for us but we feel for the neighborhood and the immediate market area, is because it does provide what we always look for, which is walkability. And it's not maybe the same as being right downtown on Fifth Avenue or something like that, but you've got walkability to the Strand, you've got walkability to the hotel, you've got walkability to the bank, to Seed to Table and, just as importantly for our residents, is the park that's right around the corner. And so, you know, those are the kinds of things that we look for in development sites and one of the reasons -- one of the reasons why we think this is a great site for this product. The other being that we do feel it's just a great transition from the car dealership to the residential to the west. And as Patrick said, we've tried to push everything away from the residential as much as possible. In terms of rental rates versus mortgage rates to our neighbors to the west, the rents at this development will be comparable or more than a mortgage payment would be today if you purchased one of the units in Bermuda Palms. So there's, I think, great compatibility there in terms of not only cost but the kind of resident that you'll have in the makeup of that neighborhood. But the walkability is very important to us. We also are pleasantly surprised at the -- while, again, we know we're adding traffic, the impact is minimal. And I think our team did a great job in working with the Germain group to provide one access point for both developments and to provide the service road through to Juliet, which is a big plus for our residents. So we're really excited about that. We believe that -- and where do we go here? So this is a project that we just finished in the Lake Mary area of Orlando, and I just wanted to show these to you because it's -- while no two projects that we do are identical, it conveys kind of the concept that we would envision here. This is a four-story building, all elevator served, and it does have a parking garage. This slide shows some of the interior finishes in the common areas, so all of our developments have very extensive common areas and really recreation opportunities for our residents. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Excuse me, sir. You said a parking garage is below ground? MR. FUSARO: No, no, no. I'll show you. This is an aboveground garage similar to what we would -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: This is four stories over parking? MR. FUSARO: No, no. This is four-story with an attached parking garage, excuse me. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Gotcha. Thank you. MR. FUSARO: I'm sorry. This just shows you some of the interior features that we try to incorporate into every development. The one on the left is our -- is part of the clubroom, pool table area. We have a fitness center, obviously, in every development that we do. This is one of the courtyards in that development with putting green, jacuzzi, swimming pool. Every property we do today has a pet spa, and generally we have a golf simulator room in every development, and we really encourage that interaction between residents on site. This just shows you the interiors of some of the units. They're condominium quality. Everything we do today is like that. And the summary, basically, I've already talked about. One thing I do want to make sure that I mention is this development has a two-level garage, not four or five. I think Patrick said three. It's actually just two levels; on grade and one level above that, and there's actually no roof on that building, so that will be open on the second floor. So it's not a three-story structure. It's actually one story above grade. COMMISSIONER FRY: So from Bermuda Palms as they look across at your development, they will see the ends of the U-shaped buildings, and then in between those two buildings they will see a two-story parking garage that fills kind of a central courtyard area. May 20, 2021 Page 63 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) MR. FUSARO: Correct, correct, yeah. So I appreciate your time. Happy to answer any questions if I can. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. No one has lit up on their deliberator. Therefore, seeing as it's 25 minutes after 2:00 -- well, before we recess, let me ask how many, if any, registered speakers do we have? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, we have three registered speakers online. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Anybody in the room? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: No, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And then, of course, we have staff. All right. So let's take a 14-minute break to 20 minutes of 3:00. We're in recess till 20 minutes of 3:00. (A brief recess was had from 2:26 p.m. to 2:41 p.m.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's return to session. Mr. Wright, anything further from the applicant? MR. WRIGHT: No, sir. That concludes our presentation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. MR. WRIGHT: We're here if there's questions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Planning Commission, any questions for the applicant? It appears not. Thank you. All right. We'll hear from staff. Is this going to be Mr. Sabo? No. MS. MOSCA: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. For the record, Michele Mosca with Zoning Division staff. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: You look familiar. MS. MOSCA: Maybe from this morning. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Maybe. MS. MOSCA: Okay. So before we start talking about the zoning petition, we're going to address the Comprehensive Plan amendment, and it is a small-scale, so this will be an adoption ordinance, so you won't have a second shot at this one. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Right. MS. MOSCA: So when Comprehensive Planning looks at a petition, we always ask, should this plan amendment be approved? Because without the plan amendment, you can't get the zoning. So just make sure everybody's aware of that. So there's always a lot of focus given to the zoning petition without a lot of discussion about the county's vision for the growth plan as well as its policies. So what are these policies? The first policy within the urban area, the vision and the plan is to allow a maximum density of up to 16 dwelling units per acre except in the mini-triangle area of the Gateway/Bayshore CRA. One area of the plan that allows 16 dwelling units per acre is the activity center, and you heard the applicant mention the activity center. Density provisions of the plan provide a transition, that is the higher densities in the activity center in intensities to the lower densities to be further removed from the activity center. The subject property is not within an activity center nor is the Germain Immokalee property to the east, which was subject to a recent Growth Management Plan amendment. The second policy, as mentioned by the applicant, is the proposed affordable housing initiatives. So you all haven't seen those initiatives yet, but those provisions will be reviewed by the Board, most likely reviewed by the Planning Commission. But those are to allow a maximum density of 25 dwelling units per acre, and these are specific provisions for affordable housing, a targeted type of development. I'm going to skip this slide. We know about the site conditions already from the applicant. So two areas of concern that Comp Planning staff has with this petition: Density as well May 20, 2021 Page 64 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) as compatibility. The eligible density under the existing plan provision is 16 dwelling units per acre. The base eligible density is four dwelling units per acre, and the eligible bonuses to target certain types of development, such as affordable housing, is available up to 16 dwelling units per acre. The subject property is requesting 30 dwelling units per acre. That's 14 more dwelling units per acre than what the plan allows currently. The density is out of character with the surrounding densities on adjacent properties, and you can tell in the slide; take a look around the surrounding areas. So as you can see from the activity center far over to the east, you see that the densities gradually go down. They go up a little bit by the -- I'm sorry -- the intersection of Livingston and Immokalee Road, and those all received eligible bonuses for either infill or affordable housing or residential density band, because that's the intention, to transition. So in the activity center, 16 dwelling units per acre. As you go further out, there's that opportunity for the residential density band of up to three additional dwelling units per acre. So the project is requesting a higher density than what is being proposed by the affordable housing amendments that you'll see in the future. It does not provide the number and type of affordable units identified in those affordable housing provisions. The second area of concern is compatibility. And the applicant has done a significant -- tremendous job to address compatibility with adjacent properties. They have done that. Comprehensive Planning staff typically defers the compatibility analysis and review to Zoning staff so they can review the project in its entirety. But what I've provided here is Future Land Use Element Policy 5.6. And, again, this is a Comprehensive Plan amendment. This is not a project that can come in today and request the 30 dwelling units per acre. So what we look for is that any new land uses be compatible and complementary to the surrounding land use. The evaluation typically looks at the building location, orientation, height, buffering, and other factors to determine compatibility. So I'm going to show you the different heights in the area. So to the west is a 34-foot two-story building; to the south they're 35-feet two-story buildings; to the west, that's the undeveloped Germain Immokalee project, and that's 55 to 60 feet; and then to the north, 35 feet, two-story buildings. Now, I want to state that the applicant has provided a greater buffer than required on the western side, I believe also on the southern side, which goes a long way to addressing compatibility; however, we do recommend that the Type B buffer that they're proposing, that perhaps maybe they can add enhanced buffering, maybe some mature trees or retain the trees that are in that area presently. Additionally, perhaps enhanced building perimeter plantings to soften the look of the garage structure as well as the building itself. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Can we ask a question on that last slide? MS. MOSCA: Sure. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Where is Germain's at 55 to 60 feet? It seems like that would be pretty compatible with what they're asking for. MS. MOSCA: Right. And, typically -- and typically we would require a transition downward. Maybe that got in under the radar; I don't know. But typically we would have suggested a lower height, and perhaps they won't come in at 55 feet, 60 feet. I'm not sure what they've developed in the past for, you know, the heights. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That came before us, and we granted it. COMMISSIONER SHEA: What's that? We did? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: These are actual heights, right? We're not getting into the May 20, 2021 Page 65 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) zoned height? MS. MOSCA: No, those are actual heights. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sixty is actual. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Actual. MS. MOSCA: Right. For the surrounding properties, those are the actual heights of those two-story buildings. So I just wanted to address the project justification. So the applicant's justification for the 30 dwelling units per acre were the commitments for essential service personnel. And, again, the discussion staff had with the applicant during the lunch hour, they go a long way to addressing the affordability portion. So now they've increased the 35 rent-restricted to 70 for ESP, as they mentioned. So 35 of the units will be 80 percent and lower, and 35 units will be greater than 80 percent to 100 of the AMI. And for those of you who are not aware of the 2021 AMI, that's 84,300. So just to keep that in perspective. So the proposals under the affordable housing amendments, those are the initiatives that the applicant has talked about, the initiatives that I spoke about earlier. Initiative 3, which is affordable housing in the activity center, that requires two-thirds of the bonus, so that's two-thirds of the bonus between 16 and 25 would be the proposal to be available to low and very low income. Now, they haven't proposed any low income in this project. That would mean 88 out of the 280 units would need to be affordable. Initiative 5, which increases density along transit routes, again, requires two-thirds of the bonus, and in this case above 13 dwelling units to be available to low and very low. Again, the project is not proposing any very low. And that would require 106 of the 280 units. So let's talk about some of the density that they believe is comparable to the other projects. So we take a look at the pictures. There's three examples here that the density is not comparable, and context is different. So we'll look at -- first we'll look at -- the top right corner is Magnolia Square. It's at Goodlette-Frank Road. This is actually -- and I believe Patrick had mentioned this. This is part of a larger Planned Unit Development, although the density itself, the 10.5 acres, roughly 290 units at, again, roughly 30 DUs per acre. But this is a very different project. This project is in a mixed-use development. So surrounding it are commercial. To the north, there's office buildings, to the east, industrial, and the school and some additional retail, and then across Goodlette-Frank Road to the west, Pine Ridge Road Estates, and those are hundreds of feet away. So just a different context to keep in mind. The Orchid Run development, which Patrick mentioned, at Livingston Road and Golden Gate Parkway, both of those are six-lane divided highways. This piece is part of a larger Planned Unit Development, Grey Oaks, and it's an isolated piece. So there really isn't any additional residential around them. There is a golf course and some units further away. And this is at a density of 12.87 dwelling units per acre, roughly 21.91 acres. And then lastly is Addison Place. That's at Immokalee and Collier Boulevard. And, again, that's at 15 dwelling units per acre. The next item is demand for rentals units in the market. There is, based on their market study, a demand in the area. Additionally, within this same market area, you'll see another apartment complex coming forward, and this is at the corner of Goodlette-Frank Road and Immokalee Road, and they're asking for an approval of 30.3 dwelling units per acre. So the concern here would be this approval could be the new level of accepted density at 30 dwelling units per acre. So staff is recommending from the Comp Planning side that we reduce the density to 20 dwelling units per acre for a total of 187 dwelling units. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Did you say 20 or 25? May 20, 2021 Page 66 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) MS. MOSCA: Twenty. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Twenty. MS. MOSCA: I'll touch on that in a moment. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MS. MOSCA: And then also reduce the building height in the PUD rezoning petition and require taller plantings in the Type B buffer along the western property line. Given all the information that we received at lunchtime, they are -- the applicant is getting closer to the initiatives that are being proposed by the Housing Department, and so staff would be able to support 25 even though it's not comparable to all of the requirements of those initiatives. So with that, I conclude, and I will have Josie talk about the zoning portion. MR. KLATZKOW: So we're basing our recommendation based on an LDC amendment that the Board hasn't approved yet? MS. MOSCA: Yes. But it's -- you know, it's consistent with the direction that we're moving forward with. So we can get to that level. Right now it's 16 dwelling units per acre, and staff could, in fact, justify the 20 because they were providing affordable housing, and they were making a commitment for 30 years. So that's why we were able to support 20. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. MOSCA: You're welcome. MS. MEDINA: Josephine Medina, principal planner with Zoning Division, for the record. So when staff is evaluating RPUD, residential -- or any PUD rezone, to echo what Michele was saying, we do evaluate FLUE Policy 5.6, development compatibility and complementary surrounding land uses. We also review LDC Section 10.02.08.F for rezoning -- for our rezoning findings as well as for the PUD findings, LDC Section 10.02.15.B.5, which I'm sure you guys are aware of. So we evaluate this based on the maximum and minimum development standards that the -- and development commitments. This evaluation, I guess I should have mentioned as well, was also based on the reduced -- the recommendation of reduced density to 20, when I was looking at the compatibility extent. So the main portion that -- the main property that would be affected is definitely, as mentioned, Bermuda Palms Condominiums. This is the one that we've also received 27 signed petitions in opposition as well as one letter requesting a reduction in density. So if we look at the property itself, what the developer is proposing is 80 feet setback from their property line as well as a 15-foot-wide Type B buffer which, as they mentioned, is enhanced because the LDC would require only a 10-foot Type A buffer. And we are also looking at the 35-foot two-story building right here to the right. If you look to the left, then you would see what you -- from the second story, what Bermuda Palms actually is looking towards. Right now, obviously the undeveloped property, I believe the agent said that the trees about -- are about 65 feet tall. And this is an estimate, so it obviously might not be the exact height. But I just wanted to get you an idea of what they would be looking at. COMMISSIONER FRY: If the building is 50 feet tall, as we discussed, and these trees are 65, are you saying that the Bermuda Palms people would not see? MS. MEDINA: Well, these trees are what are existing on the undeveloped. COMMISSIONER FRY: Oh. So those are coming down, replaced with a Type B buffer? MS. MEDINA: I guess it would depend on what's exotic, what's not, and if they're willing or able to save. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. MS. MEDINA: So it's really not -- I wouldn't be able to say. But just kind of a feel, because since it hasn't been built, I can't really say. May 20, 2021 Page 67 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) And to the north, Carlton Lakes -- Carlton Lakes. Minimum 150-foot setback from Immokalee Road is what's being proposed, LDC required Type B buffer. The amount of impact, especially with the reduced height, I don't think it would be as much. Like I said, mostly what we're seeing and how the site is located with it being long, it would definitely be more towards the west where you're seeing the majority of the impact. To the south, as you can see, this is what's, again, existing. There is a commitment to 1.18 acres designated along the southern side of this. And so if you can see, these are two-story -- I believe they're condominiums on the south. Depending on what happens with the amount of exotics that are there in the preserve, we don't see much of an impact also with the degree of -- I believe they said about 150-foot setback. I don't see much of an impact as well. They are required -- they can use the preserve as their landscape buffer, but it if there are a degree of exotics that are found, they do also have to meet the LDC requirements to beef that up a little bit. And, Commissioner Fryer, to answer your question about where Germain Immokalee is right now, right now the last -- I think Tuesday they had a pre-app for SDP. We didn't learn much from that, so that's where we are. So this is why I'm showing you what was approved in the ordinance as their master plan so you can kind of get an idea. Proposed setback from Immokalee -- from Germain Immokalee is that 25-foot setback and the required Type B 15-foot-wide buffer and, again, that ingress and ability to access Juliet through the site. And to address the why we went to -- requested a reduction in height, so staff reviewed the surrounding heights just to get an idea of what the impacts would be. So I think Michele went over this, two-story, 35 to the north; 30 feet, two-story Windsong; and then Eboli (phonetic) -- or Bermuda Palms is 34 feet. There was an approval to the south, it could either be multifamily or an ALF. It was approved for a zoned -- for, I'm sorry, an actual height of -- and that's wrong right there, but an actual height of 47 feet and a zoned height of 40 feet. And then we have to the south two stories, 35 feet. And then Germain Immokalee 60 feet and 55 and we -- as the applicant had said. The point was for this to be a transition, and usually transitions you don't go neck and neck. It's something where we want there to actually be a visual transition as you're going down the road, even for Carlton Lakes, something like that. So the other point I wanted to make is these are two-story structures but they're also divided into various buildings. So all of the multi-families we have around here are not just -- and, yes, there has been some work to allow for the courtyards and the smaller parking garages, but there's still something to do with being able to divide a building and letting that light truly come in. So the areas of concern that staff had when reviewing the evaluation criteria were the proposed change that would seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. That being said, the applicant did mention that it's a visual thing for density, but when you're living next to something, it's also more noise and more light. More people creates that. So I just wanted you to keep that in mind as well. So -- but they did really work on creating orientation where their setback was beyond what is permitted -- what is required for MF -- RMF-16, and their conceptual building envelope identified in the master plan definitely showed their concern with being able to break up the massing. They also identified the preserve location for that south -- southern portion to mitigate. They also had the buffer increase from a Type A to a Type B, which did mitigate to some extent. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes. So are you saying that you have a concern about the massing of the building? It's really one -- you have the -- it's really one long, continuous building not with the parking garage in the middle. So from Bermuda Palms, you're seeing a long, massive building with no gaps in between, or am I -- am I missing something? May 20, 2021 Page 68 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) MS. MEDINA: I mean, yes, there is some concern with that, yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. MS. MEDINA: So -- and there was a request for a reduction to the actual -- maximum actual height to help with that. But, again, as density increases, you get more light; you get more activity happening. We were also -- I was also concerned with the request being out of scale for what the neighborhood needs. Again, it's surrounded by two-story multi-families to the north, south, and west. So a reduction to the maximum actual height would create more of an appropriate transition from the commercial to the east. So staff went ahead and did a whole bunch of field surveys. I wanted to get an idea of what the actual impact might be. There's not really something in the county where I could compare as much just because of how tight this site is. The best width I could find of comparability was Orchid Run. It's 351 feet wide, four stories, density of about 2.87 [sic] dwelling units per acre. Obviously not the same density. Also, they have different stories. So if you go towards Golden Gate Parkway, they actually have two-story buildings/apartments instead of the four-story over here. So also different context along major thoroughfares. They have a canal. They have industrial zoning over here. Livingston Road divides them from Estates zoning. They also have a golf course where the major impact really is. Another field study survey that was done was Addison Place Apartments. As you can see, again, a little bit more isolated, have more preserves and dry retention areas as well as to the south will be commercial. And it's a big -- bit wider site. It has less of -- it's divided into multiple buildings as well. And they do also have enhanced buffers along the eastern portion of it; Type B buffers that have been enhanced with more mature trees. They've also made them different widths, depending where it is. If it's the amenity center, they have increased the width to 20-foot or 20-foot-wide. So they have varying degrees of Type B buffers depending on what type of use is at the location. And they are at about 15 dwelling units per acre, 51 feet actual, and four stories. With that, staff recommends approval subject to the following: Reduction to the maximum actual building height to 50 feet, and a revision to the master plan -- and this is just a correction for cleanup -- to identify a 25-foot setback along the eastern property line as has been identified in the residential PUD development standards. Other than that, I guess, like Michele, since there were changes that might increase the density, staff does have some concern with the amount of light and noise that might come from the development with a higher density, so it's in agreement with Michele regarding her request for an enhanced buffer facing Bermuda Palms. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Those three examples you showed, do they do anything with affordable housing? MS. MEDINA: I do not believe so. I don't -- I didn't research that, to be honest. CHAIRMAN FRYER: What is staff's official recommendation with respect to dwelling units per acre? MS. MOSCA: I would defer to Michele. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MS. MOSCA: Again, Michele Mosca, for the record. It's really challenging for staff to go from 20 to 25 and then up to 30, again, with the proposal for the additional affordable housing at those lower levels. It's ultimately a Board policy decision, but staff could be supportive of the 25 dwelling units per acre if, in fact, they provide for the mature trees and the Type B buffer, just so you provide those safeguards and protections for the adjacent property to the west. May 20, 2021 Page 69 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SHEA: And are you talking about if they do the 35 and 35 on the affordable? MS. MOSCA: Yes. Now, mind you, that second tier, 80 percent and below, likely you'll get 80 percent. So you may not see all the way down to the 50 percent. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: At 187 -- oh, what would 25 units per acre be, then; 235 or so? MS. MOSCA: Is your math better than mine? COMMISSIONER FRY: Oh, I don't know. So we're now above 25 percent. We're now at 30 percent or so affordable units out of the total if we did 25; seventy units out. MS. MOSCA: Two eighty. COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, it's not 280 at 25 units. It would be 235 or so. MS. MOSCA: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Is there a way to quantify the additional buffering request that you're making? Meaning Type -- you know, we have Type A, B, C, and D. You're talking about mature trees. Is that a -- is there a more tangible or quantifiable way of requesting the additional buffering? MS. MOSCA: Patrick has a good idea. Because, you know, we were just thinking mature trees. So at time of planting, Patrick is saying that they could provide for certain diameter, and I guess it would be. I'm sorry. MR. VANASSE: So in talking with -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: State your name, sir. MR. VANASSE: For the record, Patrick Vanasse. In talking with the applicant, I think his intentions are very good. He was saying, well, we could possibly tag existing trees and keep them there. Part of the complication is when we develop a site in Southwest Florida, most of the site has to be filled, and we have to put berms. So it makes it very difficult to preserve existing trees. What we can commit to -- and I'm not a landscape architect. But before we go to the Board of County Commissioners, we can have something very specific as to size of tree. So minimum planting height and minimum caliber, so how big around the tree would be. So that's not a problem. We'll get our landscape architect to give us some advice on that, and we can certainly have a solid commitment by the time we get to the Board. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anything else from staff? MS. MEDINA: Well -- and I'm not sure if this is -- just to make sure the commitment for the two-story parking garage and four-story principal building is also something that the applicant's willing to commit to. It is not on the development standards and was one of the letters that we received that there wasn't clarity in that from -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Fifty feet and four stories, right? MS. MEDINA: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I believe that's what I heard them say. MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Chairman, again, Jeff Wright, for the record. I think Mr. Fusaro has a comment that he would like to make on that particular commitment. CHAIRMAN FRYER: By all means. MR. FUSARO: Thank you. For the record, Gregg Fusaro. So I guess from our perspective, if we can make 25 units per acre work, without giving you any detail, because I haven't really thought through it, but with the less units we can either reduce the height of part of the building or all of it. We can probably reduce the number of parking May 20, 2021 Page 70 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) spaces in a parking garage. Whether that means a whole level comes off, I don't know. But either way, the reduction in units from 30 to 25 gives us flexibility to create, I'll say, just a better outcome visually in terms of building height either for part of it or all of it, and as far as structured parking goes. And so we would do that, you know, whatever would work the best from a feasibility standpoint. But either way, it will be a reduction in mass. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: Would you still commit to the 70 affordable units at 25 units per acre? MR. FUSARO: I haven't run those numbers, but I'll say, yes, we'll figure out a way to get it done. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Anything else from the applicant? MR. WRIGHT: Well, first of all, I want to thank staff, because they put in a lot of time and effort, and they have truly worked with us on this one. I don't think that our project presents a new level. We've set forth reasons why. It's a unique location and graduation of uses and also the ULI and Board of County Commissioners policy makers have kind of encouraged this type of density on these major arterial roadways that are near intersections. So we don't feel like that's a new level we're creating. One thing I owed you, Mr. Chairman, it is Blue Coral. I know that's clear now. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Blue Coral, not Coral Blue. MR. WRIGHT: Yes. We ran into a problem with addressing, because Coral is a very common way to name a development, but blue is not, surprisingly. And as far as the -- well, we agree with staff's conditions -- proposed conditions of approval, and thank you for your time. Here for any questions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. We'll hear from staff, unless there are questions -- not staff, public. COMMISSIONER FRY: One question, I think, for the applicant team is, with the reduction in units, we talked a little bit about massing and having one continuous building that entire length of the building. Is it -- do you think the reduction in units might allow a break between buildings to allow some light through? MR. FUSARO: Sure. I think we can look at that. The -- part of the concept initially was that those units that are kind of in the center, which gives you on the east side a continuous building face, would have direct access to the garage, but there may be a way to -- assuming that those were the units that we kind of got rid of, then we could look at a way to have the two buildings on the end kind of on the end of the barbell have direct access into the garage and maybe those units along the east side that are against the garage aren't there. COMMISSIONER FRY: I guess, putting myself in the shoes of Bermuda Palms people, I'm not sure whether they would prefer -- if that reduction in units allowed a reduction of a story from four to three, my opinion is they probably would prefer that over a break in the center of the structure. But do you have a -- do you have a sense of that from past experience and what they might appreciate most? MR. FUSARO: It's -- yeah, that's a tough one. I think if we asked 10 people we'll get five one way and five the other. I think that probably what we ought to do is just go back and maybe look at a couple of different options and see what just works the best overall and achieves -- again, yes, based on the actual setback from that property, I don't think the four stories is really going to be an issue. I mean, that's a lot. But I think we can certainly look at both options, because it's a finite number of units that May 20, 2021 Page 71 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) we have to reduce. So the question is maybe -- I think one of you might have mentioned or somebody mentioned earlier a building that's maybe three stories with a four-story section, we're doing that on a development right now, or do you just try to take -- open up that center area so that you have a direct line of sight, and you're only looking at a story-and-a-half, really, that you have to look over to see, you know, further to the east. Now, you might be looking at Germain's building when you look through there. But that's a valid question, and I think we would go back and play around with a couple of different options. COMMISSIONER FRY: I think we have, what, three speakers virtually for this or am I -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Three or four. COMMISSIONER FRY: Three or four virtual speakers, and I don't know what the neighborhood sentiment is yet. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think we may hear. COMMISSIONER FRY: But I would think before the County Commission the more you can walk in with agreement with your neighbors in terms of the aesthetics of it and -- MR. FUSARO: And I did speak with the woman who's president of the HOA association the other day. We had a good conversation. I just wanted to clarify the issue with respect to us having access into Bermuda Palms, which we had -- we do not want or need, but I said if they wanted it, great, or some kind of, you know, situation there. And then somebody had indicated that they thought we were tapping into their private water system, which was misinformation that came from somewhere, and I assured her that we were not doing that. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Registered speakers. Who's first? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, for Item 9A5 we have Mr. David Jordan. Mr. Jordan, are you with us, sir? (No response.) MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Jordan, if you could unmute yourself. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Maybe we come back to him. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Yeah. For Item 9A6, we have two speakers. First one is Diane Daugherty followed by Charles Berry. Ms. Daugherty, are you with us. Can you unmute your microphone for us, please. (No response.) MR. YOUNGBLOOD: All right. We'll come back to Ms. Daugherty. Mr. Berry, are you with us, sir? MR. BERRY: I'm on. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Berry? MR. BERRY: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please proceed, sir. You have five minutes. MR. BERRY: Thank you very much. I am a resident of Bermuda Palms, and I have several questions. I was curious as to the proposed breakdown between one-, two-, and three-bedroom units. And the reason for that question was that if we don't have an accurate headcount, how can you do an effective traffic study? May I go on to my second point? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please. MR. BERRY: Is the developer -- and I think the question was answered. But is the developer using totally private funds, or does he have some subsidiary money coming from government that might support the low-income housing? And third question: The stated area is 9.35 acres. If they took away 15 percent of the May 20, 2021 Page 72 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) available land as proposed for use as buffering, this leaves them 7.9 acres. Does that really work into the dwelling-units-per-acre calculation? Fourth question is, there was no report from the school district, and I'm wondering if this ultimately has an effect on what we're doing here. And my fifth question, which is more a concern, is if this goes through with the acceptance of the ratios of low-income and essential service personnel housing, how does that get policed in the future? If this is a 30-year commitment, who's watching all of this? And my final comment is: I hear them suggesting that this development will provide a nice buffer between us and the commercial areas, and we think the green trees and the nine acres that are there now present a pretty nice buffer for us as it is. And that concludes my comments and my questions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. We can get answers to those questions right now, and I think it's kind of a blend of staff and the petitioner. Question about the TIS calculation, let's start with that one. MR. MALAESCU: Good afternoon, again. My name is Ciprian. I'm with Trebilcock Consulting Solutions on behalf of Norm Trebilcock in support of the project. I think the question was if the TIS was based on the number of persons living on the project. We follow a national standard in ITE, Institute of Transportation Engineers. It's an accepted standard in Collier County. And we have data that show number of units. So the ITE does not have a headcount for a development. They do traffic surveys all over the country. In this particular case, multifamily, they have many studies, over 50 I would say, for each time period they studied. So basic analysis -- basic traffic analysis is really based on the number of units for the development. That's all. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. And that has always been a point of frustration for me, but you don't use persons per household when you're calculating; you use the ITE number. MR. MALAESCU: That is correct, but the data should be the same, because it refers to the number of units. It is covered in the ITE. So the number of units are the same. ITE covers the number. In our case, 280. So it's within the range of data that ITE has. So it really doesn't matter how many people are living there. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And I anticipated your answer. I was just pointing out that it's a point of frustration for me. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, as an engineer, I don't understand that. I mean, if you had 280 three-bedroom units, you're going to have a lot more traffic than 280 one-bedroom units. MR. MALAESCU: And there will be more traffic for -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: But your study won't reflect that. MR. MALAESCU: It will, absolutely. If it's one unit more, we'll have more traffic. COMMISSIONER SHEA: No -- yeah, but if they're both 280 and one is all one-bedroom and one's all three-bedroom, you're saying they're the same, and I don't agree with that whether it's -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I don't think so. The IT associates a number of automobiles to the size of the unit. COMMISSIONER SHEA: When you say the "size," you mean the square footage or you mean the number of -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Bedrooms. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Bedrooms. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Isn't that right? MR. MALAESCU: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: So bedrooms are taken into account? MR. MALAESCU: Not in the ITE perspective, no. May 20, 2021 Page 73 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) COMMISSIONER FRY: But you just said -- MR. MALAESCU: It's based on the number of units -- it's based on the number of units. There's no difference between a one-bedroom or two-bedroom. They have their own. Maybe -- MR. VANASSE: For the record, Patrick Vanasse. I think from a non-transportation engineer's perspective, my understanding of ITE manuals is they do studies and they look at comparable projects, and they take averages. So the one thing that we have going for us in Collier County is their persons per household tends to be lower than a lot of places in the country, but it doesn't -- like I said, it's an average of multiple projects and multiple locations throughout the country. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Regardless of number of bedrooms? MR. VANASSE: Correct. MR. FUSARO: For the record, Gregg Fusaro. Let me clarify just to answer your question a little bit. Our unit breakdown is about 9 percent studios, 51 percent one-bedrooms, about 31 percent two-bedrooms, and just under 9 percent three-bedrooms. So we're 60 percent one-bedroom or less. So from a traffic perspective, actually, the traffic studies generally, based on this type of unit, proportion mix, don't do us any favors, because it shows more traffic generation than we actually generate. The other comment, just as a point of fact from the developments that we've done in the last three or four years, they're mostly like this. They're kind of an urban landscape development within the suburb -- you know, very kind of urbanized suburban environment. And I won't say that we don't have any, but we have very, very few school-aged children in our developments. And based on that, the traffic that we actually generate is significantly lower than their studies will show, because with fewer school age, you just have fewer trips; not going to the soccer field three times a day, you know, that kind of thing. There was a question with respect to the buffer that's there now, and we get that, but if not us, probably commercial development on that site, and that's, you know, why, from our perspective, this is a great transition from that more intense development to the residential. What was the other question? CHAIRMAN FRYER: The caller asked about a government subsidy. MR. FUSARO: Oh. No, I haven't -- nobody from Collier County has volunteered any dollars. No, we don't have any government subsidy. It's all conventionally financed. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thanks. MR. FUSARO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Then the question about the reduction in acreage. You calculated it at seven acres and some change. MR. FUSARO: But I believe, and the staff may correct me, density's always calculated on total acreage. But I will point out that the 1.18-acre is a -- is required in the development, and that is a pretty substantial buffer between us and Livingston Lakes to the south, and that's a required untouched area. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And his final question, I believe, had to do with who polices. MR. FUSARO: So I don't know the answer to that 100 percent, but I believe there are reporting requirements for Collier County with the neighborhood housing folks. MR. KLATZKOW: Staff does. CHAIRMAN FRYER: County Attorney, thank you. MR. FUSARO: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: Ned, may I ask a question? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go right ahead. May 20, 2021 Page 74 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) COMMISSIONER FRY: When we were reviewing an apartment proposal for Courthouse Shadows, the developer said that they developed studio units in other areas but that they could not develop studio units in Collier County because they were too small; that Collier County had a minimum square-footage requirement per unit. And I just wondered, is that -- that was an issue for them, and that's why they weren't building studios. But we have studios proposed here. Is there any -- what is the minimum square footage of your units? MR. VANASSE: I'll have to pull that from my binder and the minimum size that we have identified. But with regards to PUDs, you have the flexibility of asking for a certain minimum size. So I don't know if that really applies to us, and I don't know the circumstances of that project. COMMISSIONER FRY: I hope not because, personally, I believe there are a lot of young professionals that would live in a studio in order to have affordability, especially in nice luxury units. So I hope it's not a limitation. I just brought it up because it was an issue on that other development. Maybe, Ray, you can talk to it. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. There were a couple sites in that area where they were proposing some studio. One was in a PUD that had existing larger unit developments, and they were opposed to the studio being part of that community, so that was an issue. There was an issue in Bayshore with another apartment-type complex where the residents there didn't want a studio associated with an affordable housing project as well. And I think there was one other one with court -- or, yeah, Courthouse, but I wasn't -- I'm not sure what the reasoning was on that case. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Do we have any other public speakers? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, we have one more speaker. We'll go back to Mr. David Jordan. Mr. Jordan, are you with us, sir? (No response.) MR. YOUNGBLOOD: I don't think Mr. Jordan is with us anymore. That concludes our speakers. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Does anyone object to us closing public comment? Well, I'll ask the applicant if he has a rebuttal. MR. VANASSE: Patrick Vanasse, for the record. Just to answer the question, our Development Standards Table does provide minimum floor area for a studio, we are at 450; for one-bedroom, 600 feet; and two-plus bedrooms, 750 square feet minimum. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: As long as that's okay with the county, it's certainly fine with me. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. The staff doesn't object. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Closing public comment. It's now time for us to deliberate on this application. Who'd like to start? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, I guess at this point I could see moving forward with -- since we've come to an agreement, I think the affordable housing is always an appealable part of it for me, and the staff being willing to accept the higher density, I would recommend -- I would approve that modified application. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Thirty or 25? May 20, 2021 Page 75 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) COMMISSIONER SHEA: I wasn't making -- I was just giving comments. I wasn't making -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Oh. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I can if that's what you want. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, it would be nice, if you wouldn't mind. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, I propose that we accept the modified proposal that the staff has concurred with for the lower density and -- MR. BELLOWS: At 25? COMMISSIONER SHEA: I guess we don't need to address -- excuse me? MR. BELLOWS: At 25 units per acre? COMMISSIONER SHEA: At 25 units. And we don't have to address the percentages committed to on the affordable housing; is that something we have to put in it or -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think we do. COMMISSIONER SHEA: It's in the record, but... CHAIRMAN FRYER: It seems to me that these are the factors that we need to deal with: First of all, the number of units that will be offered for less than 80 percent of AMI; the number of units for 80 to 100 percent of AMI; then the DUAs; and the building height. I think those are the -- and the buffering. COMMISSIONER FRY: And the buffering. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Those are the four features that I think need to find their way into our -- COMMISSIONER FRY: It was 35 units at 80 percent and below; 35 units at 80 to 100. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes. MS. MOSCA: Thirty-five units below 80, and 35 units 80 to 100 percent. COMMISSIONER FRY: Twenty-five dwelling units per acre. MS. MOSCA: Twenty-five DUs per acre, yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And actual height of 50 feet. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Fifty feet. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And more dense -- B buffering plus more density. MS. MOSCA: Those would be mature trees, and we'll have to come up with some language. COMMISSIONER FRY: To be defined and presented to the BCC. MS. MOSCA: Yes, yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Can we permit a little bit more discussion? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Of course. COMMISSIONER FRY: I feel like in a way -- and I think Jeff made a point -- that they have not approved these new development standards for the 25 units for affordable housing. We've said we've come a little bit short of what they were requesting as part of what they're considering; however, we have -- to your point, Mr. Vanasse, we have had -- most applications that have any affordable housing are that gap -- have been that gap. So here we are really in the city -- or in the main area of Collier County we have some really, you know, affordable moderate and low affordable housing. So I feel like in a way we're kicking the can down the road to the BCC to have them more or less confirm that intention of the 25 dwelling units per acre. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. For the record, Ray Bellows. This is still a GMP amendment. So they're establishing the density through the GMP amendment. And I also want to clarify you were talking about lower the actual height, but we also want May 20, 2021 Page 76 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) to make sure we address the zoned height as well. And I think, Josie, do we have a reduced zoned height as well? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Forty-five, maybe? MS. MEDINA: Yeah. They were requesting 55. I'm not sure what -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, 50. MS. MEDINA: For the zoned height? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Fifty actual. MS. MEDINA: No. They were requesting 55 previously -- well, all right. Fifty is actual. Previously they were requesting 60 actual and 55 zoned is what I was saying. MR. BELLOWS: So do we want 45 zoned? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Fifty actual, 45 zoned. MR. VANASSE: Patrick Vanasse, for the record. We looked at both the actual height and the zoned height. Like I said, we had our engineers look at the fill requirements and where our finished floor would be. We also looked at the adjacent roadway for actual height; that's how it's measured what the height was and differential with us. What staff was suggesting to us was 50 zoned height and 50 actual height. And we can make it work within that envelope, but 45 zoned height, I don't know if we can -- if we can completely make it work at this time. That's not something we studied. We looked at 50 and 50 for zoned and actual, and we can live with that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Does anyone object to 50 and 50? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: So that's what it is. Someone from staff, is there clarity on what our -- what we're about to vote on? MS. MEDINA: Yes, I believe so, because there is also, as far as when we're looking at the parking structure, should they desire to put something underneath, there is a note that I believe we will change as well to be two stories, and also, should they desire to put under -- parking underneath, then it would still be limited to that actual height of 50 -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Absolutely, absolutely. MS. MEDINA: -- which we did address in one of the notes in the development standards. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'd like to bring up one other issue just to put it on the table is the -- with the reduction in density, the possibility of reducing it from four stories to three stories, and I wondered how my fellow commissioners feel about that as a condition for approval. MR. KLATZKOW: No, you already approved 50 feet, right? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah, I think the height -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let them do what they want within -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Let them do what they want with 50 feet? MR. KLATZKOW: What's the difference if it's three stories of 50 feet or four stories of 50 feet? COMMISSIONER FRY: That's a reasonable point. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Last point I'd like to make, to compliment the applicant. This is, I think, a great proposal from the standpoint of affordability, and you're to be thanked and complimented. I think this is absolutely in line with what the Board of County Commissioners has been looking for. And so I'm delighted to be able to support this. So thank you very much. Any further comments? (No response.) May 20, 2021 Page 77 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Wait. We have to do the Growth Management Plan first. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, we'll do GMP first. On the Growth Management Plan -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: There's changes to it. MS. MOSCA: Yes, and I'm clear on the changes to the subdistrict text with the limitations that were already provided by the Commission. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Do you have clarity, Vice Chair? Do we have clarity? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'm looking. So you're just changing the 30 to 25. Well, 25 percent won't be -- MS. MOSCA: So it's going to be 70 rent-restricted, and then we'll list the categories in the subdistrict text. So it will be 35 units less than 80 percent and then 35 units above 80 to 100 percent for the ESP. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right? Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: This is on the GMP. All in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you. THE COURT REPORTER: I didn't hear Commissioner Klucik. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You didn't hear who? THE COURT REPORTER: Commissioner Klucik. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, Commissioner Klucik, we didn't hear you vote. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes, I said "aye." CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. All right. Is there a motion on the -- MS. MOSCA: Commissioner, I apologize. We -- actually, the number of days that the public notice ESP. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, yeah. MS. MOSCA: That's also -- and I apologize. That's also within the subdistrict text of the Growth Management Plan amendment. So we need to address that going from 30 days to 45 days, which was recommended by the Commission. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Without objection, can that be part of the motion that we just passed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's unanimously approved. MS. MOSCA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Now -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I wouldn't think we would need a roll call on that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik, will you please call the roll? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Not a roll call, but a vote, you know. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All those in favor of the original motion and the conditions and then the additional condition with respect to 45 days, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. May 20, 2021 Page 78 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you very much. Now, on the Land Development Code -- rather the PUD, may I have a motion on that? COMMISSIONER FRY: Move for approval subject to the conditions that have been discussed. COMMISSIONER SHEA: All the conditions that -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you, applicant. MR. VANASSE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. COMMISSIONER FRY: I would just add, I think, I appreciate just the flexibility, kind of on-the-run, very fair, I think, responses from the applicant and flexibility and concessions while we were in the meeting. So I do wish it worked like this more often. MR. VANASSE: Well, thank you very much. I told you we had a good project. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Thank you. Well done. Well done by all. Okay. That takes us to old business. I don't believe we have any. New business, one small matter. Let's discuss the need for a July 1st meeting. I've consulted with Ms. Jenkins, and she tells me there is nothing scheduled for that day. I think for our planning purposes, it would be nice if we could give ourselves a day off on July 1st. What's the wish of the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Second that motion. COMMISSIONER FRY: Would that have been a formal normally scheduled meeting? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, anybody object to that? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Without objection, then -- unless a vote is demanded, without objection, we will cancel our July 1st meeting. Obviously, if emergencies come up, then we have to reconsider, but the record will show going forward that our July 1 meeting has been canceled. Any further business? Any public comment to come before the meeting before we May 20, 2021 Page 79 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) adjourn? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, without objection, we're adjourned. Thank you. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:43 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. May 20, 2021 Page 80 of 80 5.A.a Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: 05-20-21CCPCMeeting Minutes - formatted (16146 : May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting Minutes) 06/17/2021 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.1 Item Summary: ***NOTE: This item has been continued from the May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting*** PL20200000385 GMPA - An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners proposing amendment to the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 89-05, as amended, specifically amending the Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map and Map Series to add the Santa Barbara Boulevard/Golden Gate Parkway Commercial subdistrict to the Estates-Commercial district to allow up to 21,500 square feet of permitted and conditional uses in the C-3, Intermediate Commercial zoning district, and a car wash, and furthermore directing transmittal of the adopted amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. The subject property is 6.5± acres and located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Santa Barbara Boulevard and Golden Gate Parkway in Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion item to PL20200000386) [Coordinator: Eric Johnson, Principal Planner] Meeting Date: 06/17/2021 Prepared by: Title: – Zoning Name: Andrew Youngblood 06/01/2021 12:57 PM Submitted by: Title: Planner, Principal – Zoning Name: Anita Jenkins 06/01/2021 12:57 PM Approved By: Review: Planning Commission Andrew Youngblood Review item Skipped 05/18/2021 11:38 AM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Andrew Youngblood Review Item Skipped 05/18/2021 11:38 AM Zoning Andrew Youngblood Zoning Director Review Skipped 05/18/2021 11:38 AM Zoning Andrew Youngblood Additional Reviewer Skipped 05/18/2021 11:38 AM Growth Management Department Andrew Youngblood Additional Reviewer Skipped 05/18/2021 11:38 AM Growth Management Department Andrew Youngblood GMD Deputy Dept Head Skipped 05/18/2021 11:38 AM Planning Commission Edwin Fryer Meeting Pending 06/17/2021 9:00 AM 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 86 Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) May 12, 2021 Page 1 of 46 S T A F F R E P O R T COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, ZONING DIVISION COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION HEARING DATE: May 20, 2021 SUBJECT: PETITION PL20200000385/CPSS-2020-3, SMALL SCALE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT [ADOPTION HEARING] (Companion to PL20200000386, Santa Barbara 3001 PUDZ) ELEMENTS: GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN (GGAMP) AND FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT (FLUE) APPLICANTS/OWNERS/AGENTS: Petitioners: Brian Thornton, Vice President Goodwill Industries of Southwest Florida RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc. 5100 Tice Street 200 Galleria Parkway, Suite 900 Fort Myers, Florida 33905 Atlanta, Georgia 30339 Agents: D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. Q. Grady Minor & Associates, PA Coleman Yovanovich & Koester, PA 3800 Via Del Rey 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Bonita Springs, Florida 34134 Naples, Florida 34103 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property (Parcel ID: 38170040001) is 6.4± acres and located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Santa Barbara Boulevard and Golden Gate Parkway, approximately 0.77 miles east of I-75 in Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 26 East. (Below: see location map and aerial map with subject site hi-lighted.) 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) May 12, 2021 Page 2 of 46 PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: According to the petition, the purpose of the Estates Designation, Commercial District, Santa Barbara Boulevard/Golden Gate Parkway Commercial Subdistrict (Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict) is to provide commercial land uses to serve the surrounding area and traveling public. The new subdistrict proposes 21,500 square feet of uses that are permitted by right (or conditionally) in the Commercial Intermediate District (C-3). The subdistrict also proposes a carwash (SIC 7542), which is a permitted use in the General Commercial District (C-4). The petitioner submitted a rezoning petition (PUDZ-PL20200000386) as a companion item to this GMP amendment. The companion PUDZ proposes the same uses, consistent with the new subdistrict. REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County (Board), Florida, amending the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 89-05, as amended, specifically amending the Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) and Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map and Map Series to add the Santa Barbara Blvd /Golden Gate Parkway Commercial subdistrict to the Estates-Commercial district to allow up to 21,500 square feet of permitted and conditional uses in the C-3 zoning district, and a car wash, and furthermore directing transmittal of the adopted amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO). Subject Property 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) May 12, 2021 Page 3 of 46 LAND USE, ZONING, AND FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION: SUBJECT PROPERTY: The subject parcel (Parcel ID: 38170040001) is designated Estates, Mixed Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict, as depicted on the Urban Golden Gate Estates FLUM in Ordinance 2019-25. The entire site is zoned Estates (E) with a majority of the property (measured perpendicular from Golden Gate Parkway a distance of 330 feet) located within the Corridor Management Overlay District (CMO). The property was approved with a provisional use in 1982 for a church (PU-82-23-C) and currently developed with a place of worship. In 2008, the subject property was included as part of a larger privately-initiated GMP amendment (CP-2008-3) to amend the GGAMP to create the Golden Gate Parkway Mixed-Use Subdistrict on ±20.71-acres. This petition included 74 multi-family residential dwelling units—at 3.55 dwelling units per acre—and 60,000 square feet of commercial uses, similar to C-1 through C-3 zoning districts (with no more than 40,000 square feet developed as retail uses). Below is excerpt from the Background and Considerations portion of that staff report: Please be advised that this amendment will be subject to the requirements of Policy 5.1.1. of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. Policy 5.1.1 provides lighting standards for the prevention or reduction of light pollution. GGAMP – Present Commercial development is limited to Neighborhood Centers, site-specific commercial subdistricts, and existing commercially zoned properties. Conditional use development, except essential services and model homes, is limited to Estates Neighborhood Centers, infill development on the west side of C.R. 951, and transitional areas – adjacent to certain non-residential uses or adjacent to Neighborhood Centers, and two site-specific locations – one on the south side of Golden Gate Parkway. I-75 Interchange and surrounding land uses: Resulting from the State’s approval to fund and construct the I -75 Interchange at Golden Gate Parkway, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approved Resolution 2001-56 establishing an Ad Hoc Advisory Committee to provide recommendations on the appearance and landscaping of the interchange. The Committee was specifically tasked with creating an “overlay” district for the interchange to, minimize impacts to property owners, preserve the residential character of the area, and establish landscaping provisions consistent with creating a “gateway” into Naples and Golden Gate. GGAMP Re-Study Committee – GGAMP Policy 5.2.3 and revisions to the Estates, Conditional Uses Subdistrict: The GGAMP Re-Study Committee was formed, in part, to study the land use needs of the Golden Gate Community, such as commercial, community facility and institutional uses. County staff worked with the Committee to identify appropriate areas to locate new commercial development and conditional uses within the Estates and Golden Gate City. Committee recommendations to the BCC included added provisions for cond itional use development, expansion and creation of Neighborhood Centers within the Estates, and the expansion and creation of commercial/mixed-use subdistricts within Golden Gate City. The Re-Study Committee also identified areas that were inappropriate for new commercial and conditional use development. One such area identified by the Committee was the Golden Gate Parkway corridor, between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. In 2003, the Re-Study Committee recommended to the BCC provisions that would prohibit new commercial and conditional use development along Golden Gate Parkway in the Estates. 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) May 12, 2021 Page 4 of 46 Committee recommendations for expanded commercial and conditional use opportunities and the restriction of these uses in certain areas governed by the Master Plan were adopted by the BCC in 2003 and 2004, as part of the Phased Re-Study Amendments to the GGAMP. Therefore: The project (CP-2008-3) is not consistent with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan that prohibit new commercial and conditional use development along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. Additionally, a commitment was made by the County to the Florida Department of Transportation in consideration of the approval and construction of the I-75 Interchange to keep the Golden Gate Parkway corridor “green” and not allow the proliferation of commercial and conditional uses. CP-2008-3 was reviewed by the CCPC on November 19, 2009. Staff recommended to not transmit the petition to the then Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA). The staff’s findings and conclusions for CP-2008-3 were as follows: • The proposed subdistrict is inconsistent with Policy 5.2.3 of the GGAMP, which prohibits commercial development along Golden Gate Parkway between Living ston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. • The application and support documentation for the proposed amendment does not address changed conditions, including community desire, that would justify or support an exception or change to the adopted Policy 5.2.3 in the GGAMP. • The current institutional land uses serve an excellent transition between the Golden Gate City Urban Designation to the east of the subject site and the semi-rural residential to the west of the subject site. The recent improvements to Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard do not appear to have adversely affected these current institutional uses. • A commitment was made by the County to the Florida Department of Transportation in consideration of the approval and construction of the I-75 Interchange at Golden Gate Parkway to keep the Golden Gate Parkway corridor, between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard, “green” and not allow the proliferation of commercial and conditional uses. The subject site is located in that corridor. • Despite the existence of Policy 5.2.3 in the GGAMP, it is important to note that the approval of this petition may provide the impetus for additional requests for commercial, either on abutting sites to the west, across Golden Gate Parkway adjacent to the northwest quadrant of the Golden Gate Parkway/Santa Barbara Boulevard intersection, or both. • The requisite data and analysis necessary to support the proposed change from Estates – Mixed Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict to the requested mixed- use subdistrict, as required by Rule 9J-5, F.A.C., was not provided. The data provided indicated that no need exists for commercial – retail, but possibly a need for commercial – office. • The petitioners’ Office Study and Retail Study underreported s upply due to the petitioners’ incorrect evaluation of the future land use designations. • Overall, staff finds the methodology used by the petitioners in the Office Study and the Retail Study to be professionally acceptable. However, staff does not concur with the petitioners that an allocation ratio of 2.0 indicates need, in other words, that the supply 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) May 12, 2021 Page 5 of 46 should support 200% of the projected population; instead, staff would recommend a minimum allocation ratio of 1.25. • Staff’s analysis of the Retail Study d etermined that the 2010 and 2030 retail supplies are almost 3.4-times and 2.7-times the retail demand, which provides retail for almost 340% and 270% of the projected population, respectively, and clearly indicates no additional retail is warranted at the subject site. • No additional factors demonstrate or support the need for more retail on the subject site: 1) Within 2.5 miles, a net supply of over 600,000 ft 2 of retail space exists in the Golden Gate City Urban designation; 2) Community desires for the GGAMP Estates district and in particular, the Golden Gate Parkway corridor are reflected in Policy 5.2.3 of the GGAMP, which prohibits commercial development along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard; and, 3) Current institutional uses on the subject site positively support the community and provide for an excellent transition between the Urban designated land to east of the subject site and the semi - rural residential Estates to the west of the subject site. • Staff’s analysis of the Office Study determined that the 2010 and 2030 office supplies are almost 1.9-times and 1.4-times the office demand and provides office for almost 190% and 140% of the projected population, respectively, which indicates a reasonable amount of office space. With the extremely high supply of retail space, a portion of the retail space will be used to fulfill any potential office deficiencies. • No additional factors demonstrate or support the need for more office space on the subject site. There is a net supply of over 1-million ft2 of office space in the Golden Gate City Urban designation, within 2.5 miles of the subject site. • No supporting data and analysis has been provided, as required by Rule 9J-5, F.A.C., to demonstrate a need for increased residential density or its appropriateness at this location, such as a compatibility study, which would identify the impacts of the proposed project on the surrounding area. According to Applicants’ Attachment E - Zoning and Land Use Map, Estates designated lands comprise over 60% of the land use within 500’ surrounding the subject site. • It is asserted in the amendment application that the expansion of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard to 6-lanes has changed the character of the existing residentially zoned site, making it unsuitable for single -family housing. The current uses on the subject site, a church and school, have existed for over 25 years. The current institutional uses on the subject site have limited ingress/egress points and provide for an excellent transition between the Urban designated lands to the east of the subject site and the semi-rural residential Estates designated lands to the west of the subject site. These types of institutional uses warrant consideration as the hig hest and best use of the site. • The proposed subdistrict mixed-use intensity/density of development (60,000 ft 2 of commercial and 74 dwelling units) is consistent with an urban style development and is an extreme departure from the low densities presently allowed in the Estates designation - one residential unit per 2 ¼ acres or legal lot of record. (If approved, this would be the first increase in density authorized in the Estates designation since adoption of GGAMP in 1991.) • Staff acknowledges that the inclusion of on-site housing for the Goodwill Industries continued operations can help eliminate the transportation barrier for these employees. However, the proposed amendment does not guarantee these housing units. • For HB697 requirements, the applicants have not provided data supporting their generic statements. This petition promotes urban sprawl with the urban style 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) May 12, 2021 Page 6 of 46 development outside the GGAMP Urban Designation in an area designated for 1 DU/2.25 AC. • Using “proximity to urban development” as justification for increasing land use for urban development contradicts smart growth and perpetuates urban sprawl when not supported by data and analysis. The compact Urban Designation to the east has a clearly defined boundary. The location of the subject site in the Estates semi-rural residential district is at the edge of the Urban Designation. The Estates district on the western edge of the Golden Gate City Urban Designation is approximately 1,900 acres and characterized by large semirural style lots. Community desire for the Estates designated lands along Golden Gate Parkway is to prohibit new commercial and conditional use development expansion while providing provisions for commercial/mixed-use subdistricts within the Urban designated Golden Gate City. • This petition is inconsistent with the GGAMP vision for commercial development in Golden Gate Estates, as well as for low (semi-rural) density residential development within the Estates designation. In 2003 and 2004, the community desires (prohibiting new commercial and conditional use development along Golden Gate Parkway in the Estates while providing provisions for commercial/mixed-use subdistricts within Golden Gate City) were adopted into the GGAMP. The CCPC voted to continue the petition indefinitely and it was later withdrawn by the applicant on February 26, 2010. The staff report for CP-2008-3 has bearing on the evaluation of the subject request for the Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict. As such, CP-2008-3 will be further discussed in the Background, Consideration, and Analysis portion of this staff report. Future Land Use Designation of Subject Property: The subject property has a FLUE designation of Estates Designation, Estates-Mixed-Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict, pursuant to the Urban Golden Gate Estates FLUM of the GGAMP. The Estates Designation is characterized by low density semi-rural residential lots with limited opportunities for other land uses and accommodates only a few non-residential uses. The specific language for the Estates Designation in the Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element of the GGAMP is provided as follows: This designation is characterized by low density semi-rural residential lots with limited opportunities for other land uses. Typical lots are 2.25 acres in size. However, there are some legal non-conforming lots as small as 1.14 acres. Residential density is limited to a maximum of one unit per 2.25 gross acres, or one unit per legal non-conforming lot of record, exclusive of guesthouses. Multiple family dwelling units, duplexes, and other structures containing two or more principal dwellings, are prohibited in all Districts and Subdistricts in this Designation. Generally, the Estates Designation also accommodates future non-residential uses, including: a. Conditional uses and essential services as defined in the Land Development Code, except as prohibited in the Neighborhood Center Subdistrict. Also, refer to the Conditional Uses Subdistrict. b. Parks, open space and recreational uses. c. Group Housing shall be permitted subject to the definitions and regulations as outlined in the Collier County Land Development Code (Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended) and consistent with locational requirements in Florida Statutes (Chapter 419.001 F.S.). 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) May 12, 2021 Page 7 of 46 d. Schools and school facilities in the Estates Designation north of I-75, and where feasible and mutually acceptable, co-locate schools with other public facilities, such as parks, libraries, and community centers to the extent possible. Group Housing includes the following type facilities: aa. Family Care Facility if occupied by not more than six (6) persons shall be permitted in residential areas. bb. Group Care Facility, cc. Care Units, dd. Adult Congregate Living Facilities, and ee. Nursing Homes. All of the above uses shall be consistent with all of the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. The Residential Estates Subdistrict in the Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element is provided as follows: Single-family residential development is allowed within this Subdistrict at a maximum density of one unit per 2.25 gross acres, or one unit per legal non-conforming lot of record, exclusive of guesthouses. Zoning Classification of Subject Property: The purpose and intent of the provisions of the E zoning district in LDC section 2.03.1 B. are provided as follows: B. Estate District (E). The purpose and intent of the estates district (E) is to provide lands for low density residential development in a semi-rural to rural environment, with limited agricultural activities. In addition to low density residential development with limited agricultural activities, the E district is also designed to accommodate as conditional uses, development that provides services for and is compatible with the low density residential, semi-rural and rural character of the E district. The E district corresponds to and implements the estates land use designation on the future land use map of the Collier County GMP, although, in limited instances, it may occur outside of the estates land use designation. The maximum density permissible in the E district shall be consistent with and not exceed the density permissible or permitted under the estates district of the future land use element of the Collier County GMP as provided under the Golden Gate Master Plan. The CMO provisions were first added to the GMP in 1989 (as Policy 4.2). The current FLUE policies relevant to the CMO are Policies 4.5 and 4.7, as provided for in Exhibit A. The current provisions of the CMO in LDC section 2.03.07 are provided as follows: A. Corridor Management Overlay (CMO). 1. The purpose of the (CMO) district is to supplement existing zoning regulations for properties bordering Golden Gate Parkway west of Santa Barbara Boulevard and Goodlette-Frank Road south of Pine Ridge Road. The CMO district will implement the urban design concepts developed in the corridor management study for Goodlette-Frank Road and Golden Gate Parkway. These regulations recognize that two (2) separate jurisdictions govern land uses in these corridors and are designed to develop greater consistency in design standards between Collier County and the City of Naples. 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) May 12, 2021 Page 8 of 46 2. These regulations apply to all properties adjacent to the rights -of-way of Goodlette- Frank Road from U.S. 41 to Pine Ridge Road and Golden Gate Parkway from U.S. 41 to Santa Barbara Boulevard as measured perpendicular from the abutting right- of-way for a distance of 330 feet. Except as provided in this regulation, all other use, dimensional, and development requirements shall be as required in the underlying zoning categories. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: North: Right-of-way for Golden Gate Parkway, then farther north is an undeveloped ±6.83-acre parcel (Parcel ID: 38170000009). The FLUM of the Urban Golden Gates Estates designates this parcel as Estates Designation, Commercial District, Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict. This parcel (Parcel ID: 38170000009) was included in this subdistrict, pursuant to Ord. 2001-12. The current map and provisions of the subdistrict are provided in Exhibit B. The property is zoned CPUD (Colonades at Santa Barbara Commercial Planned Unit Development) and located within the CMO. The Colonades at Santa Barbara Commercial CPUD was adopted in 2004 and approved with a maximum gross leasable area of 35,000 square feet for mixed office uses. The site is currently vacant. In 2005, the subject site was part of a larger GMP amendment (CP-2005- 5) that proposed to expand the subdistrict by ±13 acres, in order to allow for up to 115,000 square feet of intermediate commercial and general office uses, including a residential density of 15 dwelling units per acre; however, the Board unanimously voted to deny this petition on June 5, 2007. In 2011, another GMP amendment request (CPSS-2011-2) was submitted to the County, which included this parcel. This petition included, but was not limited to, expanding the subdistrict by ±2.8 acres, and allowing Group Housing for seniors (with a Floor-Area-Ratio not to exceed 0.45) and medical offices (not to exceed 5,000 square feet). This petition was also never adopted. North of the Colonades at Santa Barbara CPUD are Parcel IDs: 38169960008, 38169920006, and 38169840005), which the Urban Golden Gate Estates FLUM designates as Estates Designation, Mixed Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict. The parcels are zoned E and have been developed with single-family dwellings (as per the property appraiser’s office). Northwest: Right-of-way for Golden Gate Parkway, then farther northwest are several rectangular-shaped lots (Parcel IDs: 38168800004, 38168840006, 38168160003, 38168240004, 38168200002, and 38167080003) fronting on Golden Gate Parkway. These lots range in size from ±1.17 acres to ±2.81 acres, and each has a single-family dwelling. The property appraiser’s data was used to confirm the land use. The Urban Golden Gates Estates FLUM of the designates these parcels as Estates Designation, Mixed Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict. The properties are zoned E and portions are located within the CMO. West of these parcels is a ±4.68-acre rectangular-shaped lot (Parcel ID: 38166600002) owned by the Naples Bridge Center, Inc. The Urban Golden Gate Estates FLUM designates this parcel as Estates Designation, Mixed Use District, Conditional Use Subdistrict: Golden Gate Parkway Special Provisions. The map and provisions of this subdistrict are provided in Exhibit C. The property is zoned E and a portion is located within the CMO. 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) May 12, 2021 Page 9 of 46 In 1980, a provisional use for a social organization was granted by the Board, pursuant to Res. 80-128. Following the adoption of an LDC amendment in 1991, the Naples Bridge Center was granted a conditional use for the establishment of a social organization and 1,050 square foot building expansion to the existing 2,634 square foot building, pursuant to Resolution 94-424. A third conditional use was approved in 2007 to expand the building by an additional 3,500 square feet, pursuant to Res. 2007-138. The property was approved for a GMP amendment (Ord. 2016-12) to create an exception to the prohibition of conditional uses along Golden Gate Parkway (between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard) for the Naples Bridge Center. A CU was also approved in 2016 for CU- PL20150000873 (Res. 2016-101) to expand the building. This resolution superseded Res. 07-138. An SDPI (PL20190001703) was approved in 2019 to reduce the size of the building from 5,581 square feet to 3,387 square feet. West of the Naples Bridge Center are two additional lots (Parcel IDs: 38166520001 and 38166560003) with single-family dwellings (as per the property appraiser’s office). The Urban Golden Gate Estates FLUM designates these parcels as Estates Designation, Mixed Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict. The properties are zoned E and portions are located within the CMO. West of these single-family dwellings is a vacant ±5.15-acre parcel (Parcel ID: 38165640005) owned by the David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc. The Urban Golden Gate Estates FLUM designates this parcel as Estates Designation, Mixed Use District, Golden Gate Parkway Institutional Subdistrict. The map and provisions of this subdistrict are provided in Exhibit D. The property is zoned E and a portion is located within the CMO. West of this property is a ±4.96-acre parcel (Parcel ID: 38165120004) owned by Parkway Life Church of God. The Urban Golden Gate Estates FLUM designates this parcel as Estates Designation, Mixed Use District, Golden Gate Parkway Institutional Subdistrict (see Exhibit D). The property is zoned E and a portion is located within the CMO. West of Parkway Life Church of God is a ±8.1-acre parcel (Parcel ID: 38163640007) owned by David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc. The Urban Golden Gate Estates FLUM designates this parcel as Estates Designation, Mixed Use District, Golden Gate Parkway Institutional Subdistrict (see Exhibit D). The property is zoned E and a portion is located within the CMO. East: Right-of-way for Santa Barbara Boulevard, then farther east are three parcels (Parcel IDs: 36430040002, 36431120002, and 36459360006) located within a Residential Density Band as depicted on the countywide FLUM. The northernmost of the three parcels (Parcel ID: 36430040002) is located at the southeast corner of Santa Barbara Boulevard and Golden Gate Parkway. The Golden Gate City FLUM designates this undeveloped corner parcel as Downtown Center Commercial Subdistrict, pursuant to Ord. 2021-48. The map and provisions of the Downtown Center Commercial Subdistrict are provided in Exhibit E. The property is zoned PUD (Parkway Center Planned Unit Development) and located within the 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) May 12, 2021 Page 10 of 46 Downtown Center Subdistrict of the Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District (GGPOD-DT). Prior to 2021, the site was designated Golden Gate Parkway Professional Office Commercial Subdistrict, pursuant to Ord. 2000-28. The other two parcels (i.e., Parcel ID: 36431120002 and Parcel ID: 36459360006) are located south of the Parkway Center PUD along Santa Barbara Boulevard and developed with multi-family residential dwellings (as per the property appraiser’s office). The Golden Gate City FLUM designates both of these parcels as Urban Residential Subdistrict. In the Golden Gate City FLUE, the Urban Residential Subdistrict is in the Urban Designation, Urban Mixed-Use District. The provisions of this designation, district, and subdistrict are provided in Exhibit G. Parcel ID: 36431120002 was approved with a provisional use in 1987 for a rehabilitation center, pursuant to Res. 1987-262. All parcels along the north and south sides of Golden Gate Boulevard (for over 3,000 feet east of the intersection of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard) are designated Downtown Center Subdistrict of the Golden Gate City Sub-Element of the GGAMP (see Exhibit E). All are located within a Residential Density Band as depicted on the countywide FLUM. There are varying zoning districts for these parcels, but all are located within the GGPOD-DT. Northeast: Right-of-way for Santa Barbara Boulevard, then farther northeast are four parcels located at the northeast corner of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard (and south of 27th Court S.W.). These parcels are located within a Residential Density Band as depicted on the countywide FLUM. Parcel IDs: 36326990101, 36326640008, and 36326690003 are developed with commercial uses. Parcel ID: 36326680000 remains undeveloped. The Golden Gate City FLUM designates Parcel IDs: 36326990101 and 36326640008 as Downtown Center Commercial Subdistrict (see Exhibit E). They are zoned C-4 and located within the GGPOD-DT. The Golden Gate City FLUM designates Parcel IDs: 36326690003 and 36326680000 as Urban Residential Subdistrict. In the Golden Gate City FLUE, the Urban Residential Subdistrict is in the Urban Designation, Urban Mixed-Use District. The provisions of this designation, district, and subdistrict are provided in Exhibit G. North of 27th Court S.W. and Parcel ID: 36326690003, are multiple parcels located along the east side of Santa Barbara Boulevard. The closest of these properties is approximately 650 feet from the subject property. The Golden Gate City FLUM designates all these parcels as Santa Barbara Commercial Subdistrict. The Santa Barbara Commercial Subdistrict was adopted, pursuant to Ord. 1999-17. The current map and provisions are provided in Exhibit H. All parcels within this group (i.e., north of 27th Court S.W. and south of 22nd Place S.W.) are located within a Residential Density Band as depicted on the countywide FLUM. They are zoned RMF-12 and located within the Santa Barbara Commercial Overlay District (SBCO). South: A developed ±12.8-acre parcel (Parcel ID: 38170120002) designated Estates as depicted on the countywide FLUM. The Urban Golden Gate Estates FLUM designates this parcel as Estates Designation, Mixed Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict. The property is zoned E and was approved with a provisional 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) May 12, 2021 Page 11 of 46 use in 1978 for Naples Christian Academy, pursuant to Res. 1978-62. The site is currently developed with a private school. A portion of the property is located within the CMO. South of the private school are three rectangular-shaped parcels (Parcel IDs: 38170160004, 38170240005, and 38170200003), each having a single-family dwelling (as per the property appraiser’s office). The Urban Golden Gate Estates FLUM designates these parcels as Estates Designation, Mixed Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict. They are all zoned E. On June 9, 1998, the parcel was approved for a CU for the continuation of a model home, pursuant to Res. 98- 180. West: A developed ±1.64-acre parcel (Parcel ID: 38168720003) with an Estates Designation, Mixed Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict as depicted on the Urban Golden Gate Estates FLUM. The entire property is zoned E with approximately half of the parcel located within the CMO. The parcel has been developed with a single-family dwelling (as per the property appraiser’s office). West of Parcel ID: 38168720003 are four more rectangularly-shaped parcels (Parcel IDs: 38168760005, 38168680004, 38168320005, and 38168280006). Of these four parcels, the three closest to the subject property (Parcel IDs: 38168760005, 38168680004, and 38168320005) have been developed with single family dwellings (as per the property appraiser’s office). The fourth and farthest parcel from the subject property (Parcel ID: 38168280006) is vacant. The Urban Golden Gate Estates FLUM designates all four parcels as Estates Designation, Mixed Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict. All four parcels are entirely zoned E with portions located within the CMO. South of these parcels, are several parcels (Parcel ID: 38168360007, 38168440008, 38168400006, 38168480000, and 38168520009), each fronting on 58th Street S.W. They range in size, but all are designated Estates Designation, Mixed Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict as depicted by the Urban Golden Gate Estates FLUM, and all are zoned E. Along Golden Gate Parkway is a ±5.15-acre parcel (Parcel ID: 38167040001) that is owned by the Florida-Georgia District of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. It is located at the southwest intersection of Golden Gate Parkway and 58th Street S.W. The Urban Golden Gate Estates FLUM designates this parcel as Estates Designation, Mixed Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict. The entire parcel is zoned E with a portion located within the CMO. On July 28, 2009, this site was approved for a CU to expand the church but that the maximum area of all buildings at build-out shall not exceed 65,569 square feet, pursuant to Res. 09-187 BACKGROUND, CONSIDERATIONS, AND ANALYSIS: To broaden the range of allowable non-residential uses on the subject property, the applicant submitted this petition with the intent of amending the FLUE and FLUM, to create the Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Parkwy Commercial Subdistrict. According to the petition, the purpose of the new subdistrict is to provide commercial land uses to serve the surrounding area and traveling public. The new subdistrict proposes 21,500 square feet of uses that are permitted by 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) May 12, 2021 Page 12 of 46 right (or conditionally) in the C-3 zoning district. The subdistrict also proposes a carwash (SIC 7542), which is a permitted use in the C-4 zoning district. These uses are reflected in the companion rezoning petition (PUDZ-PL20200000386) to create the 3001 SB CPUD. The PUDZ also lists a number of prohibited uses. Staff assessed the proposed Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Parkway Commercial Subdistrict in the context of the provisions currently in place for the subject property as well as with those adopted on the surrounding properties and provides the eight following observations: #1 Conflict with Policy 3.1.4 The GGAMP was first adopted in 1991. In 2004, the Board adopted Ordinance 2004-71, which included Policy 5.2.3 (see Exhibit F). Policy 5.2.3 was the predecessor to Policy 3.1.4, which is the current policy under Goal 3 in the Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element that forbids the future rezoning of lands to commercial (in this area along Golden Gate Parkway). Policy 3.1.4 specifically reads as follows: Recognizing the residential nature of the land uses surrounding the I -75 interchange at Golden Gate Parkway, as well as the restrictions on conditional uses of the Conditional Uses Subdistrict of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, there shall be no further commercial zoning for properties abutting Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. No new commercial uses shall be permitted on properties abutting streets accessing Golden Gate Parkway with the above -defined segment. This policy shall not apply to that existing portion of the Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict, which is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Golden Gate Pa rkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The subject property is located within the geographical area specified in the above policy. Since Policy 3.1.4 restricts the further rezoning of lands to commercial for properties located along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard, the petitioner is requesting to amend the policy, to exclude the subject property from the restriction. The Board has not given direction to change this policy. Therefore, this petition is inconsistent with Policy 3.1.4. When staff reviewed CP-2008-3, Policy 5.2.3 was cited multiple times in the Background and Considerations and in the Findings and Conclusions of the staff report. The Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict, which is the FLUM designation for the adjacent property to the north (Parcel ID: 38170000009), was adopted in 2001 and excluded from the applicability of Policy 5.2.3. Policy 5.2.3 was adopted just a few years prior to when Golden Gate Parkway was widened to six lanes (sometime between 2005 and 2007 as determined by staff by examining digital imagery of the area). In addition, the Golden Gate Parkway and Collier Boulevard Special Provisions of the Conditional Uses Subdistrict, which is the FLUM designation of the nearby property owned by the Naples Bridge Center, Inc. (Parcel ID: 38166600002), contains a similar restriction to Policy 3.1.4. With respect to conditional uses, the restrictions of the Golden Gate Parkway and Collier Boulevard Special Provisions of the Conditional Uses Subdistrict stipulates as follows: 1. Recognizing the existing r esidential nature of the land uses surrounding the I -75 interchange at Golden Gate Parkway, there shall be no further conditional uses for properties abutting Golden Gate Parkway, between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard, except: as permitted within the Golden Gate Parkway Institutional Subdistrict and the Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict; as provided in subparagraphs 3. and 5. below; for the properties identifi ed as Unit 30 Tracts 113-115 and the N 150’ of tract 116 that have existing Conditional Uses; and, for essential services, as described in paragraph a., above. 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) May 12, 2021 Page 13 of 46 2. Further, no properties abutting streets accessing Golden Gate Parkway, between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard, shall be approved for conditional uses except: as permitted within the Golden Gate Parkway Institutional Subdistrict; as provided in subparagraph 3. below; and, for essential services, as described in paragraph a. above. The Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict proposes conditional uses, and because of this, it conflicts with this current policy in the Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub- Element of the GGAMP. FINDING: The proposed Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict is inconsistent with Policy 3.1.4, as was the case with CP-2008-3 (of then Policy 5.2.3). #2 Conflict with current zoning and development pattern With respect to the zoning of the subject property, the entirety of the subject parcel is zoned E. In addition, the northern 330 feet of the entire width of the property is located in the CMO. The E zoning district only allows for a limited number of non-residential uses. It does not include gas stations as an allowable use. FINDING: The proposed Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict and companion CPUD conflicts with the existing (and contemplated) development pattern along the south side and much of the north side of Golden Gate Boulevard in this area. #3 Conflict with Policy 3.2.3 The parcels which stand to be most affected by this petition are those abutting the subject property to the west (Parcel ID: 38168720003) and to the south (Parcel ID: 38170120002) The Urban Golden Gate Estates FLUM designates these parcels as Estates Designation, Mixed Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict. As described above, the Residential Estates Subdistrict is characterized by low density semi-rural residential lots with limited opportunities for other land uses. When comparing the future land use designation of the proposed petition to the future land use designation on the abutting properties, staff concludes that redesignating the subject property from the Estates Designation, Mixed Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict to the Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict represents a higher intensity and inconsistency with Policy 3.1.4 of the Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element of GGAMP. Furthermore, in this context, the proposed project conflicts with Policy 3.2.3 in the Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element reads as follows: Rural character shall be further protected by resisting site-specific Master Plan changes that are out of scale or character with the rural quality of Urban Golden Gate Estates. FINDING: The construction of 21,500 square feet of commercial uses, including a gas station and car wash are out of scale with the rural quality of the Urban Golden Gate Estates and inconsistent with Policy 3.2.3. #4 Higher intensity than adjacent property to north With respect to the adjacent property to the north, the Urban Golden Gate Estates FLUM designates Parcel ID: 38170000009 as Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict. As shown in Exhibit B, this subdistrict is limited to commercial uses that are similar to uses allowed in the C-1, C-2, and C-3 zoning districts. However, when this parcel was the subject of a GMP amendment in 2001 to redesignate the future land use designation, the petition (CP-2000-7) was approved with restrictions, most notably, limiting the maximum building square footage and restricting the allowable uses to office only. These limitations are reflected in the rezoning of the 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) May 12, 2021 Page 14 of 46 property in 2004 (Colonades at Santa Barbara PUD). Staff concludes that the proposed Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict, particularly the gas station component, is more intense than what is entitled on the adjacent property directly to the north. The proposed car wash is a use that is allowed in the C-4 zoning districts. This represents a greater commercial intensity than what is allowed on the adjacent property to the north. Parcel 38170000009 is similar in size to the subject parcel but still vacant. FINDING: The proposed Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict represents a higher commercial intensity than the adjacent property to the north. #5 Naples Bridge Center co-existence with residential uses The Urban Golden Gate Estates FLUM designates the Naples Bridge Center with Estates Designation, Mixed Use District, Conditional Use Subdistrict: Golden Gate Parkway Special Provisions. When the GMP amendment for the Naples Bridge Center (PL20150002525) was evaluated by staff in 2016, the staff report indicated as follows: The applicant’s justification for the requested amendment is to meet the demands for additional members. The Naples Bridge Center is pursuing an exception to the prohibition of conditional uses at this location as opposed to re-locating for the following reasons: 1) over 30 years of operation and successfully co-existing with neighbors at this location; 2) easy access to I-75 for members that do not come from the surrounding neighborhood; and 3) the location is readily-recognizable and found by seasonal visitors. One difference between the Naples Bridge Center and this petition—in the context with how both interface with neighboring single-family residential uses—is that the Naples Bridge Center had a long history of co-existing with the surrounding residential uses, whereas the proposed petition does not. Furthermore, the Naples Bridge Center was approved with a much smaller building footprint than the proposed Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict. FINDING: The Naples Bridge Center has had a rich history of co-existing with the surrounding residential property, despite it being a non-residential use. The same concession cannot be extended to the proposed petition. #6 Gasoline stations are prohibited on nearby properties Approximately 650 feet from the subject property is the Santa Barbara Boulevard Subdistrict. These parcels are located along the east side of Santa Barbara Boulevard, north of 27th Court S.W. When this subdistrict was created in 1999, the intent was to provide Golden Gate City with additional opportunities for small scale commercial development. The subdistrict was intended to contain low intensity uses that generate/attract relatively low traffic volumes. The subdistrict prohibited “automobile service stations and similar repair facilities”; however, it did not preclude “convenience marts with gasoline pumps.” The subdistrict has since been amended with the current language as provided for in Exhibit H. While the prohibition of automobile service stations and similar repair facilities was removed from the subdistrict, the intent for uses generating/attracting relatively low traffic volumes still remains. When the SBCO was created in the LDC in 2000, it listed a gasoline service station (SIC 5541) as a prohibited use. The same is true today. Because of the prohibition of gas stations in the SBCO, it is staff’s opinion that allowing one on the subject site would grant an unfair advantage to this property owner in comparison to 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) May 12, 2021 Page 15 of 46 the entitlements enjoyed on nearby properties. Furthermore, the SBCO does not list a car wash as a permitted, which further exacerbates this conflict. FINDING: Allowing a gas station and a car wash on the subject site would grant an unfair advantage to this property owner, due to the prohibition of gas stations and car washes on nearby properties. #7 Conflicts with GGPOD As previously mentioned, the Golden Gate City FLUM designates the adjacent property to the east (Parcel ID: 36430040002) as Downtown Center Commercial Subdistrict . According to the Golden Gate City Sub-Element, the primary purpose of the Downtown Center Commercial Subdistrict is to encourage redevelopment along Golden Gate Parkway in order to improve the physical appearance of the area and create a vibrant and viable downtown district within Golden Gate City. This subdistrict emphasizes the creation of a pedestrian-oriented boulevard, and the commercial intensity is such that it allows for permitted and conditional uses in the C-3 zoning district. The prohibited uses in the Downtown Center Commercial Subdistrict includes any commercial use employing drive-up, drive-in, or drive-through delivery of goods or services. The recently adopted GGPOD in the LDC prohibits gas stations in the GGPOD-DT. While the subject property is neither located in the Downtown Center Commercial Subdistrict nor the GGPOD-DT, the provisions of the Downton Cener Commercial Subdistrict and the GGPOD-DT, nonetheless, need to be taken into consideration, because these provisions are applicable to property that is only approximately 185 feet away from the subject property. Allowing a gas station and a car wash on the subject site would grant an unfair advantage to this property owner, due to the prohibition of gas stations and car washes in the GGPOD (unless the underlying zoning allows for such uses). It should be noted that this adjacent property was originally designated Golden Gate Parkway Professional Office Commercial Subdistrict before it was redesignated to the Downtown Center Commercial Subdistrict in 2019. With respect to the former zoning overlay on this adjacent property, the now-repealed Golden Gate Parkway Professional Office Commercial Subdistrict allowed for small-scale retail uses, but gas station was not listed as one of them. FINDING: Allowing a gas station and a car wash on the subject site would grant an unfair advantage to this property owner, due to the prohibition of gas stations and car washes in the GGPOD (unless the underlying zoning allows for such uses). #8 Higher intensity than adjacent properties to the east With respect to the two adjacent parcels to the east (i.e., Parcel ID: 36431120002 and Parcel ID: 36459360006), the Golden Gate City FLUM designates both as Urban Residential Subdistrict (see Exhibit G). The Urban Designation, Urban-Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict is intended to accommodate a variety of residential and commercial land uses, including single- family, multi-family, duplex, and mixed use (Planned Unit Development). However, the zoning for Parcel ID: 36431120002 is RMF-12, and the zoning for Parcel ID: 36459360006 is RSF-3. Neither zoning district permits gas stations, and only a few non-residential uses are allowed as conditional uses. FINDING: The proposed Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict would be inconsistent with this development pattern on the opposite side of Santa Barbara Boulevard. 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) May 12, 2021 Page 16 of 46 Petitioner’s Retail Market Analysis: The applicant submitted a commercial needs analysis, prepared by Real Estate Econometrics, Inc., dated August 21, 2020, to independently analyze market conditions for the proposed 21,500 square feet of commercial space (herein referred to as “Analysis”). The Analysis provides context for assessing a specific selection of goods and services’ requirements of the emerging population within the market area identified. The Urban Land Institute (ULI), “a nonprofit education and research institute” whose mission is “to provide leadership in the responsible use of land and in creating and sustaining thriving communities worldwide,” provides categories for the various types of commercial shopping centers (e.g., “Neighborhood,” “Community,” “Regional,” “Super Regional,” etc.). Based on the petition’s requested square footage, the Analysis classifies the proposed development as a Neighborhood shopping center with the sub-category of “Convenience” shopping center. The Analysis includes a drive-time analysis to justify the conversion of the Residential Estates Subdistrict to the proposed Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict. The Analysis states, “In order to determine the commercial demand coming from the five-minute drive time market area, it is important to first determine the population in the five-minute drive time market area. The first step in determining the population in the five-minute drive time market area is to calculate the population from each of the planning communities intersected by the 5-mile drive time market area.” Figure 2.2.1 on the next page represents the “five-minute drive time to the Subject Property.” It includes I-75 as being within the drive time. The commercial needs analysis identified three applicable Collier County Planning Communities from which the population will be drawn. The three Planning Communities are as follows: #2 – Central Naples #3 – Golden Gate #12 – Urban Estates The consultant determined that 60% of the drive time market is located within # 3 – Golden Gate Planning Community and 20% each from #2 – Central Naples Planning Community and #12 – Urban Estates Planning Community. Staff is unsure of why there is a discrepancy in the boundary between Figure 2.2.1 and Figure 2.2.3 (see below). This space intentionally blank 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) May 12, 2021 Page 17 of 46 The Analysis determined that the current (Year 2020) drive time population is 41,153. Staff utilized the Collier Interactive Growth Model (CIGM) to compare the baseline population in the CIGM to the data in the commercial needs analysis. According to the CIGM, the three Planning Communities statistics are as follows: Planning Area 2020 Population Percent Drive Time Population 3 - Golden Gate 48,263 60% 28,958* 12 - Urban Estates 44,985 20% 8,997 2 - Central Naples 19,690 20% 3,938 112,938 41,893 * Rounded up The 2020 baseline population derived from the CIGM is similar (i.e., 41,893 vs. 41,153) to the population in the Analysis. The Analysis also provides a market area demand for the project. The consultant determined that the commercial square foot demand per capita is 70.06, which is shown in Table 3.1.1 below: This space intentionally blank 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) May 12, 2021 Page 18 of 46 Staff notes that the consultant used the commercial square footage from 11 of the 12 Planning Communities to determine the demand per capita. The omitted Planning Community from Table 3.1.1 was 11 - Big Cypress, which has very little population compared to the others. In addition, when staff utilized the consultant’s data to determine the commercial square footage demand per capita among the three affected Planning Communities, the demand is much lower, as shown below: Population Growth Around Subject Property This section provided an overview of population growth (utilizing 2018 figures) and applied a multiplier to estimate and forecast populations on which to base the remainder of the Analysis. The Analysis identified a 15-minute drive time as its market area for this medium-size community shopping center. This 15-minute drive time area is delineated in this figure, copied from the Analysis. For staff’s evaluation, the CIGM was utilized. It estimates a 54,431 population for the market area in 2020, and projects 59,901 people in 2030, and 99,100 in 2040. Market Area Demand Countywide population figures were then apportioned to the 15-minute drive time market area to represent any additional commercial demand for this location. This calculation yielded a demand of 22.29 sq. ft. of commercial space per capita. [This figure is discordant with the 17.27 square feet of commercial space per capita figure used previously for the property located adjacently north.] The market area can support 1,213,473 square feet of all commercial needs in this market area at this time; 1,579,788 square feet of commercial needs in this market area by 2030; and, 2,209,305 square feet of commercial needs in this market area by 2040. Market Area Supply The Analysis inventoried 725,404 square feet of existing commercial development (on 114.54 acres) of developed “competing commercial parcels” located in the market area. The Analysis inventoried (approximately 701,050 square feet of undeveloped commercial) on 110.69 acres of undeveloped “competing parcels” located in the market area. The supply analysis suggests no less than 1,751,404 square feet of developed and undeveloped commercial space is available in the market area. Planning Area 2014 Square Feet 3 – Golden Gate 1,574,301 12 – Urban Estates 2,500,631 2 – Central Naples 2,732,949 6,807,881 2020 Population 114,181 Demand in Square Feet: 59.62 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) May 12, 2021 Page 19 of 46 The CIGM identifies a supply of 1,691,857 square feet developed and undeveloped commercial space available in the market area. Staff Assessment of Petitioner’s Retail Market Analysis The analysis provided in the Analysis is an objective population-based demand methodology. The petitioner’s market analysis appears to be valid. However, the proposed project is not consistent with Policy 3.1.4, which states that there shall be no further commercial zoning along Golden Gate Parkway. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The petitioner submitted a Listed Species & Environmental Data Report, updated to June 2020 (Exhibit V.C) prepared by Peninsula Engineering. Staff reviewed the Report and provided the following remarks: The subject property is 6.4 acres. The acreage of native vegetation on site has been field verified by staff during review of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the project. The project is currently zoned Estates. The proposed GMP amendment will not affect the requirements of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) of the GMP. Native vegetation on site w ill be retained in accordance with the requirements of CCME Policy 6.1.1 and section 3.05.07 of the LDC. Environmental Services staff recommends approval. Regarding flood zone information for PL20200000385: The planning project includes the following parcel: 38170040001, as shown on the below snip from the Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) as shown on ArcReader. The yellow and purple areas marked X and X500 flood zones are not in the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). These flood zones are moderate to low risk and do not have an assigned base flood elevation (BFE). The remaining beige areas are flood zone AH, are within the SFHA, and do have BFEs. There are two BFEs for those areas within the SFHA. They are labeled as sections A and B. The section marked A is for all of the SFHA section between the 10’ and 10.5’ contour lines and has a BFE of 10.5’ North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD). The section marked B is for the SFHA section east of the 10.5’ contour line and has a BFE of 11’ NAVD. These designations of BFE apply to structures built within these parcels. If a structure is entirely within X or X500 flood zone, that is its flood zone and it has no BFE to be built according to. If a structure is partially within X or X500 flood zone and partially within AH flood zone, its flood zone is AH with its assigned BFE. If a structure is touching a blue contour line, its BFE is the BFE of the contour line. Buildings and site improvements will be required to comply with all applicable floodplain management rules and regulations. 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) May 12, 2021 Page 20 of 46 TRAFFIC CAPACITY/TRAFFIC CIRCULATION IMPACT ANALYSIS, INCLUDING TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION: TR Transportation Consultants, Inc. submitted a Traffic Impact Statement (Exhibit V.E1), updated to October 20, 2020. Collier County Transportation Planning staff reviewed the Statement and provided the following evaluation: Sufficient capacity is indicated along all surrounding roadways, except for Golden Gate Parkway east of Santa Barbara Boulevard, both with and without [this] Land Use Amendment and [its companion] rezoning approval. Golden Gate Parkway to the east of Santa Barbara Boulevard and west of I-75 is projected in the year 2024 to have insufficient capacity [even ] without the trips generated by the proposed development. These segments of Golden Gate Parkway are projected to operate below capacity by 2023; therefore, both segments are considered as future pre-development deficiencies. The property is located in the East-Central Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA); development requires a proportionate share congestion mitigation payment, as well as, the implementation at least two (2) of the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies per Transportation Element Policy 5.6. These TDMs have not been proposed by the developer for review by staff. Both Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard are designated as hurricane evacuation routes; The companion PUD document for this commercial project contains a developer commitment limiting the maximum number of p.m. peak hour two-way trips under any development scenario. Reference: Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT): Interstate 75 at Golden Gate Parkway Interchange Project Development and Environmental (PD&E) study, Dated January 2001. The PD&E study completed by FDOT for the interchange at I-75 and Golden Gate Parkway did not contemplate the proposed project intensity. Reference Attachment A-Social Impacts, A-1 Land Use Changes, second paragraph: “The current adopted Collier County Comprehensive Land Use Plan indicates that the existing residential and provisional land uses along Golden Gate Parkway 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) May 12, 2021 Page 21 of 46 within the proposed interchange study area, will remain the same in the future. This condition is supported by current zoning designations which indicate residential and provisional uses for this area. The Comprehensive Plan further recognizes that commercial activity centers should remain concentrated at existing adjacent interchanges along I-75 in Collier County (i.e.: Pine Ridge Road and CR 951). The residential character of the Golden Gate community is further protected by the current adopted Golden Gate Estates Master Plan which includes the proposed interchange area. Therefore, it is anticipated that the existing residential and provisional land use designations will remain the same in the future.” Staff recognizes that the proposed development is located outside of the study area; however the proposed convenience store with gas pumps and or fast-food restaurant uses are often a destination attractors for interstate drivers which were not contemplated in this FDOT PD&E study. While this is not a GMP Transportation Element review criteria staff wishes to provide as broad of a review as possible. [Michael Sawyer, Project Manager, Transportation Planning Section] PUBLIC FACILITIES IMPACTS: The petitioner submitted a Public Facilities Report, dated October 13 (Exhibit VE-r2). Staff reviewed the Report and provide the following remarks: • Potable Water system: The subject project lies in the Collier County Water-Sewer District’s Regional Water Service Area and development will be served by Collier County Public Utilities. FINDING: The proposed Subdistrict will not impact the potable water system based on population. • Wastewater Treatment System: The subject project currently lies in the service area of a wastewater reclamation facility. The property, however, lies adjacent to the Collier County Water-Sewer District’s North Regional Wastewater Service Area. FINDING: The proposed Subdistrict will not impact the wastewater treatment system since the level of service (LOS) standard is based on population. • Solid Waste Collection and Disposal: The solid waste disposal service provider is Collier County Solid Waste Management. FINDING: The average daily disposal rate for the commercial project is estimated at 1,000 lbs. per day, with an estimated annual disposal of 39,238 lbs., or 19.62 tons. The AUIR recognizes that the County has approximately 41 years (2061) of remaining landfill capacity, but will reach its additional permitted capacity by or before 2051. • Stormwater Management System: The 2020 AUIR does not identify any stormwater management improvement projects in the vicinity of the subject property. FINDING: Future development will comply with the SFWMD and/or Collier County rules and regulations that assure controlled accommodation of stormwater events by both on-site and off-site improvements. • Park and Recreational Facilities: No effect on the demand for community and regional is identified in this Analysis on park facilities result from the proposed Subdistrict. FINDING: Comprehensive Planning finds no adverse impacts to the County’s Parks and Recreations system. 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) May 12, 2021 Page 22 of 46 • Schools: The Analysis identifies no demand for public school facilities resulting from the proposed Subdistrict. FINDING: Comprehensive Planning finds no adverse impacts to the County’s school system. • Fire & Rescue, Emergency Medical (EMS), and Sheriff’s Services: • Fire protection and response services are provided by the Greater Naples Fire Rescue District, with District Station 70 (located at 4741 Golden Gate Parkway) located approximately one-half of a mile (0.5) from the site. • Emergency Medical services are provided by the Collier County Bureau of Emergency Services, with EMS Station 70 (located at 4741 Golden Gate Parkway) located approximately one-half of a mile (0.5) from the site. • Protection services are provided by the Collier County Sherriff’s Office, with District 2 Substation (located at 4707 Golden Gate Parkway) located within one-half mile (0.40) from the site. The proposed development is anticipated to have no significant impacts on these emergency services. FINDING: Comprehensive Planning finds no adverse impacts to the County’s emergency services. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM) SYNOPSIS: The application team held a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) at the Golden Gate Community Center meeting facilities, located at 4701 Golden Gate Parkway, Golden Gate City on August 13, 2020, at 6:30 p.m. as required by Section 10.03.05 F. of the LDC. This NIM was advertised, noticed and held jointly for this GMP amendment petition and companion PUD rezone petition. Approximately 26 people other than the application team (inc. engineering and audio and video technicians) and County staff attended ‒ and heard the following information: Rich Yovanovich (attorney presenting the application), introduced other principals present, including David Jansen and Eric Mallory, of the Barron Collier Company. Timothy Finn and Corby Schmidt of the Growth Management Department, Zoning Division, and Burt L. Saunders, District 3 Commissioner, Board of County Commissioners, were in attendance. Mr. Yovanovich described the existing characteristics of the property, located at the southwest corner of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard. He explained how the small-scale GMPA and PUDZ requests will allow office and retail uses in the C-1 through C-3 commercial zoning districts, plus one C-4 intensity commercial use, while specific plans involve an automotive gas station – convenience store, car wash, and fast-food restaurant. He displayed a site plan showing a possible arrangement of buildings for the three main commercial uses. Mr. Yo vanovich described the existing characteristics and limitations of the Golden Gate Parkway ‒ Santa Barbara Boulevard intersection. He explained how these limitations would allow only a single left & right-in entry from, right-out exit onto Golden Gate Parkway and a single right-in entry from, right-out exit onto Santa Barbara Boulevard. He displayed another site plan showing the probable location of these points of access, including the new median break in Golden Gate Parkway and extended turning lanes. 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) May 12, 2021 Page 23 of 46 Neighbors in attendance asked about traffic, and turning maneuvers in particular, as the new turn lanes and crossing traffic will introduce problems to an already busy traffic area. One speaker pointed out the number of locations with uses similar to those being proposed here located in proximity; making the project unneeded. Gas stations are located within short driving distances to the north and south from this site, convenience items are available at the same intersection, with better vehicular access, and so on. Those in attendance expressed concerns with the proposed combination and arrangement of commercial uses, with respect to the adjacent or neighboring educational facilities and residential uses, in particular, the problems inherent with: • liquor sales next to schools , and • noises generated by the vacuums, washers and other equipment used at car washes. Mr. Yovanovich discussed how restaurants, eating and drinking establishments differ from simple beer and liquor sales in law – in relation to surrounding properties and land uses. He also described the type of car wash facilities intended for this site, including the outside vacuum stations typical of current businesses. While the project would include a wall and additional buffering along the western boundary, these additional protections will not extend further south, or along the southern boundary. Neighbor who resides adjacent to the west pointed out location of residence, which has a deep setback from Golden Gate Parkway, and explained how his adjacent home is unprotected from the noises generated by the vacuums, washers and other car equipment. He asked for additional protections. Mr. Yovanovich said the developer has already agreed with the southerly neighbor to not build / include a wall and additional buffering between the two properties. He also told those present of no other proposed deviations or variances from standards or rules. More discussion took place regarding traffic on Golden Gate Parkway, especially with introducing new westbound left turns crossing into oncoming eastbound traffic; introducing a new eastbound turn lane and right-turns into the site the same immediate vicinity; and, introducing new eastbound right-turns from the site into approaching eastbound traffic the same immediate vicinity. The limited access onto Santa Barbara Boulevard exhibits similar drawbacks, and more, with regard to necessitating U-turns in order to complete certain entering or returning traffic maneuvers. [note: this median turn lane proposal has since been withdrawn.] Portions of Mr. Yovanovich’s presentation appeared on PowerPoint images. Print materials were made available to those interested in attendance. The NIM ended at approximately 7:10 p.m. Timothy Finn and Corby Schmidt remained to answer questions from neighbors about the public hearing process before the Planning Commission and County Board, and the anticipated schedule these two companion petitions are on. [Synopsis prepared by C. Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner] FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The reviews and analysis of this petition provide the following findings and conclusions: • The site is developed with a place of worship. 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) May 12, 2021 Page 24 of 46 • In 2008, the site was included in a privately-initiated GMP amendment (CP-2008-3) that would have created the Golden Gate Parkway Mixed-Use Subdistrict. Staff reviewed the petition and recommended to not transmit CP-2008-3 to the DCA. The CCPC voted to indefinitely continue the petition, and the application was subsequently withdrawn. • According to the CP-2008-3 staff report, a commitment was made by the County to the Florida Department of Transportation in consideration of the approval and construction of the I-75 Interchange to keep the Golden Gate Parkway corridor “green” and not allow the proliferation of commercial and conditional uses. • The FLUM designation for the abutting properties is as follows: Estates Designation, Mixed Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict as per the Urban Golden Gate Estates FLUM. • The FLUM designations for the adjacent and nearby properties are as follows: ▪ Estates Designation, Commercial District, Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict, as per the Urban Golden Gate Estates FLUE; ▪ Downtown Center Commercial Subdistrict, as per the Golden Gate City FLUE; ▪ Urban Designation, Urban Mixed-Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict, as per the Golden Gate City FLUE; ▪ Estates Designation, Mixed Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict, as per the Urban Golden Gate Estates FLUE; ▪ Estates Designation, Mixed Use District, Conditional Use Subdistrict: Golden Gate Parkway Special Provisions, as per the Urban Golden Gate Estates FLUE; ▪ Golden Gate Parkway Institutional Subdistrict, as per the Urban Golden Gate Estates FLUE; and ▪ Santa Barbara Commercial Subdistrict, as per the Golden Gate City FLUE. • The proposed Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict is considered more intense than the FLUM designations on abutting, adjacent, and nearby properties. • The subject property is located within the geographical area specified in Policy 3.1.4 of the Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element of the GGAMP. Since the policy restricts the further rezoning of lands to commercial for properties located along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard, the petitioner is requesting to amend the policy, to exclude the subject property from the restriction. The Board has not given direction to change this policy. • The Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict proposes conditional uses. This conflicts with the provisions of the Estates Designation, Mixed Use District, Conditional Use Subdistrict: Golden Gate Parkway Special Provisions of the Urban Golden Gate Estates, which restricts the approval of conditional uses for properties along Golden Gate Boulevard in this area. • When comparing the future land use designation of the proposed petition to the future land use designation on the abutting properties, staff concludes that the proposed petition represents a higher intensity and, therefore, inconsistent with Policy 3.2.3 of the Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element of the GGAMP. 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) May 12, 2021 Page 25 of 46 • With respect to the transportation network, sufficient capacity is available along all surrounding roadways, except for Golden Gate Parkway east of Santa Barbara Boulevard, both with and without this GMP amendment and the companion rezoning petition. • Golden Gate Parkway, east of Santa Barbara Boulevard and west of I-75, is projected in the year 2024 to have insufficient capacity. The vehicular traffic generated by this development was not factored into this determination of anticipated insufficiency. These segments of Golden Gate Parkway will operate below capacity by 2023. Both segments are considered as future pre-development deficiencies. • The subject property is located in East-Central TCMA; development requires a proportionate share congestion mitigation payment, as well as, the implementation at least two (2) of the TDM strategies per Transportation Element Policy 5.6. These TDMs have not been proposed by the developer for review by staff. • This amendment involves text changes to the goals, policies, and objectives of the comprehensive plan, and proposes more than text changes that relate directly to site-specific FLUM changes for a site-specific small scale development activity. The GMP amendment shifts the clearly defined boundary of the CMO away from Santa Barbara Boulevard, across to the west side of the subject property, and does not meet the Statutory standard for this condition. • The GMP amendment does not preserve the internal consistency between and among GMP elements and does not meet the Statutory standard for this condition. • Within the last few years, Community Planning staff has met with the neighboring Estates residents regarding changes to the Community Plan. The residents were adamant about keeping the Golden Gate Parkway corridor “green,” that is to continue to prohibit commercial development on sites such as this that are located within this green corridor. • People attending the NIM expressed a strong consensus that developing the property was not desired. • A companion rezone petition has been submitted concurrent with this GMPA petition. This does not ensure, however, that the subject property will be developed with that proposed project. Approval of Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict would allow the subject property to develop with any one or more of the commercial uses permitted. • There are no issues regarding anticipated impacts upon potable water, wastewater collection and treatment, or solid waste collection and disposal services. However, pollution control staff has several concerns pertaining to the adjacent private potable wells. These concerns are outlined in the companion rezone petition report. • The proposed GMP amendment has no effect on the requirements of the CCME. • As was the case with CP-2008-3 (as it pertained to Policy 5.2.3 in the GGAMP), despite the existence of Policy 3.1.4 in the Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element of the GGAMP, it is important to note that the approval of this petition may provide the impetus for additional requests for commercial, either on abutting sites to the west or across Golden Gate Parkway, or both. IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE PERTINENT REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLANS AND PLAN AMENDMENTS ARE NOTED IN CHAPTER 163, F.S., SPECIFICALLY SECTIONS 163.3177(6)(A) 2. AND 8.: 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) May 12, 2021 Page 26 of 46 Considerations required for the adoption of a comprehensive plan amendment are listed below: Section 163.3177(6)(a)2. Florida Statutes: The process for adoption of a comprehensive plan amendment requires (in part) that plan amendments shall be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, 2. The future land use plan and plan amendments shall be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, as applicable, including: a. The amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth. b. The projected permanent and seasonal population of the area. c. The character of undeveloped land. d. The availability of water supplies, public facilities, and services. e. The need for redevelopment, including the renewal of blighted areas and the elimination of nonconforming uses which are inconsistent with the character of the community. f. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to or closely proximate to military installations. g. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to an airport as defined in s. 330.35 and consistent with s. 333.02. h. The discouragement of urban sprawl. i. The need for job creation, capital investment, and economic development that will strengthen and diversify the community’s economy. j. The need to modify land uses and development patterns within antiquated subdivisions. Section 163.3177(6)(a)8., Florida Statutes: The process for adoption of a comprehensive plan map amendment [which this is] requires (in part) that plan amendments shall be based analyses of the availability of facilities and services, the suitability of the plan amendment for its proposed uses, and of the minimum amount of land needed to achieve the goals and requirements of the existing subdistricts, overlays and special designations, within which land use programs and activities are ultimately directed. (a) A future land use plan element designating proposed future general distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land for residential uses, commercial uses, industry, agriculture, recreation, conservation, education, public facilities, and other categories of the public and private uses of land. The approximate acreage and the general range of density or intensity of use shall be provided for the gross land area included in each existing land use category. The element shall establish the long-term end toward which land use programs and activities are ultimately directed. 8. Future land use map amendments shall be based upon the following analyses: a. An analysis of the availability of facilities and services. b. An analysis of the suitability of the plan amendment for its proposed use considering the character of the undeveloped land, soils, topography, natural resources, and historic resources on site. c. An analysis of the minimum amount of land needed to achieve the goals and requirements of this section. 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) May 12, 2021 Page 27 of 46 Also, the state land planning agency has historically recognized the consideration of community desires (e.g. if the community has an articulated vision for an area as to the type of development desired, such as within a Community Redevelopment Area), and existing incompatibilities (e.g. presently allowed uses would be incompatible with surrounding uses and conditions). It is incumbent upon the petitioner to provide appropriate and relevant data and analysis to address the statutory requirements for a Plan amendment, then present and defend, as necessary, that data and analysis. CRITERIA FOR GMP AMENDMENTS IN FLORIDA STATUTES The data and analysis requirements for comprehensive plans and plan amendments are noted in Chapter 163, F.S., specifically as listed below. Identification and Analysis of the Pertinent Criteria in Florida Statutes, Chapter 163.3187, to Qualify as a Small-Scale Comprehensive Plan (GMP) Amendment: The process for adoption of small-scale comprehensive plan amendment requires (in part) the following statutory standards be met, [followed by staff analysis in bracketed text]. (1) A small scale development amendment may be adopted under the following conditions: (a) The proposed amendment involves a use of 10 acres or fewer. [The GMP amendment pertains to a 6.4-acre ± property; therefore, this condition is met.] (b) The proposed amendment does not involve a text change to the goals, policies, and objectives of the local government’s comprehensive plan, but only proposes a land use change to the future land use map for a site-specific small scale development activity. However, text changes that relate directly to, and are adopted simultaneously with, the small scale future land use map amendment shall be permissible under this section. [This GMP amendment involves text changes to the goals, policies, and objectives of the comprehensive plan, and proposes more than text changes that relate directly to site-specific FLUM changes for a site-specific small scale development activity. It [the amendment] shifts the clearly defined boundary of the CMO away from Santa Barbara Boulevard, across to the west side of the subject property, and does not meet the Statutory standard for this condition.] (c) The property that is the subject of the proposed amendment is not located within an area of critical state concern, unless the project subject to the proposed amendment involves the construction of affordable housing units meeting the criteria of s. 420.0004(3), and is located within an area of critical state concern designated by s. 380.0552 or by the Administration Commission pursuant to s. 380.05(1). [The subject property is not located within an Area of Critical State Concern.] (4) Comprehensive plans may only be amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of the plan pursuant to s. 163.3177. [The amendment does not preserve the internal consistency between and among GMP elements and does not meet the Statutory standard for this condition.] Section 163.3177(1)(f), Florida Statutes: The process for adoption of a comprehensive plan amendment requires (in part) that plan amendments shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and an analysis by the local government, 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) May 12, 2021 Page 28 of 46 (f) All mandatory and optional elements of the comprehensive plan and plan amendments shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and an analysis by the local government that may include, but not be limited to, surveys, studies, community goals and vision, and other data available at the time of adoption of the comprehensive plan or plan amendment. To be based on data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue. 1. Surveys, studies, and data utilized in the preparation of the comprehensive plan may not be deemed a part of the comprehensive plan unless adopted as a part of it. Copies of such studies, surveys, data, and supporting documents for proposed plans and plan amendments shall be made available for public inspection, and copies of such plans shall be made available to the public upon payment of reasonable charges for reproduction. Support data or summaries are not subject to the compliance review process, but the comprehensive plan must be clearly based on appropriate data. Support data or summaries may be used to aid in the determination of compliance and consistency. 2. Data must be taken from professionally accepted sources. The application of a methodology utilized in data collection or whether a particular methodology is professionally accepted may be evaluated. However, the evaluation may not include whether one accepted methodology is better than another. Original data collection by local governments is not required. However, local governments may use original data so long as methodologies are professionally accepted. 3. The comprehensive plan shall be based upon permanent and seasonal population estimates and projections, which shall either be those published by the Office of Economic and Demographic Research or generated by the local government based upon a professionally acceptable methodology. The plan must be based on at least the minimum amount of land required to accommodate the medium projections as published by the Office of Economic and Demographic Research for at least a 10-year planning period unless otherwise limited under s. 380.05, including related rules of the Administration Commission. Absent physical limitations on population growth, population projections for each municipality, and the unincorporated area within a county must, at a minimum, be reflective of each area’s proportional share of the total county population and the total county population growth. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: CAO to provide. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PL20200000385 / CPSS-20-3 to the Board with a recommendation of denial and not adopt or transmit to the Florida DEO. (Note: single underline text is added, as proposed by petitioner; double underline text is added, and double strike through text is deleted, as recommended by staff.) Exhibit IV.B Amendment Language Revise the GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) May 12, 2021 Page 29 of 46 URBAN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES SUB-ELEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict Exhibit IV.B Amendment Language Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Policy 3.1.4: [page 3] Recognizing the residential nature of the land uses surrounding the I-75 interchange at Golden Gate Parkway, as well as the restrictions on conditional uses of the Conditional Uses Subdistrict of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, there shall be no further commercial zoning for properties abutting Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. No new commercial uses shall be permitted on properties abutting streets accessing Golden Gate Parkway within the above-defined segment. This policy shall not apply to that existing portion of the Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict, which is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard, or the Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict located in the southwest corner of the intersection of Santa Barbara Boulevard and Golden Gate Parkway. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** B. Estates – Commercial District [beginning page 14] *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** 6. Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict [beginning page 18] This Subdistrict consists of 6.4± acres and is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Santa Barbara Boulevard and Golden Gate Parkway. The purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide commercial land uses to serve the surrounding area and traveling public. Development within the Subdistrict shall be subject to the following: a. The Subdistrict shall be rezoned to a Planned Unit Development (PUD). b. The maximum commercial square footage permitted within the Subdistrict is 21,500 square feet of floor area. c. The rezone ordinance shall include development standards and buffers to insure compatibility with surrounding properties. d. Allowable uses shall be limited to those: • Uses permitted by right and by conditional use in the C-3, Commercial Intermediate Zoning District, as listed in the Collier County Land Development Code, Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended. 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) May 12, 2021 Page 30 of 46 • Carwash (SIC7542) The rezone Ordinance shall limit these uses further to insure compatibility with surrounding properties. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** [page 19] Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkway Commercial Subdistrict 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Exhibit A – Policies 4.5 and 4.7 in GMP Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) May 12, 2021 Page 31 of 46 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Exhibit B – Urban Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) May 12, 2021 Page 32 of 46 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Exhibit B – Urban Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) May 12, 2021 Page 33 of 46 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Exhibit B – Urban Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) May 12, 2021 Page 34 of 46 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Exhibit C – Conditional Use Subdistrict: Golden Gate Parkway Special Provisions Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) May 12, 2021 Page 35 of 46 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Exhibit C – Conditional Use Subdistrict: Golden Gate Parkway Special Provisions Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) May 12, 2021 Page 36 of 46 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Exhibit D – Golden Gate Parkway Institutional Subdistrict Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) May 12, 2021 Page 37 of 46 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Exhibit D – Golden Gate Parkway Institutional Subdistrict Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) May 12, 2021 Page 38 of 46 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Exhibit E – Downtown Center Commercial Subdistrict Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) May 12, 2021 Page 39 of 46 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Exhibit E – Downtown Center Commercial Subdistrict Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) May 12, 2021 Page 40 of 46 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Exhibit E – Downtown Center Commercial Subdistrict Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) May 12, 2021 Page 41 of 46 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Exhibit F – Policy 5.2.3 of Ordinance 2004-71 Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) May 12, 2021 Page 42 of 46 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Exhibit G – Urban Designation, Urban Mixed-Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) May 12, 2021 Page 43 of 46 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Exhibit G – Urban Designation, Urban Mixed-Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) May 12, 2021 Page 44 of 46 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Exhibit G – Urban Designation, Urban Mixed-Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) May 12, 2021 Page 45 of 46 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Exhibit H – Santa Barbara Commercial Subdistrict Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) May 12, 2021 Page 46 of 46 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Exhibit H – Santa Barbara Commercial Subdistrict Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) May 12, 2021 Page 47 of 46 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Final Staff PL20200000385_CPSS-2020-3 (05-12-2021) (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Ordinance - 030921 (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Ordinance - 030921 (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Ordinance - 030921 (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict GMPA) PL20200000385/ CP2020-3 March 11, 2021 Page 1 of 5 Words underlined are added; words struck-through are deletions EXHIBIT A GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN URBAN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES SUB- ELEMENT Table of Contents Page i A. Goals, Objectives, and Policies B. Land Use Designation Description Section 1. ESTATES DESIGNATION A. Estates – Mixed Use District *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** B. Estates – Commercial District 1. Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict 2. Pine Ridge Road Mixed Use Subdistrict 3. Commercial Western Estates Infill Subdistrict 4. Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict 5. Southbrooke Office Subdistrict 6. Santa Barbara Blvd./Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** C. List of maps Urban Golden Gate Estates Future Land Use Map Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict Pine Ridge Road (CR 896) ‒ Interchange Activity Center and Mixed Use Subdistrict Urban Golden Gate Estates Neighborhood Centers Collier Boulevard/Pine Ridge Road Neighborhood Center Commercial Western Estates Infill Subdistrict Golden Gate Parkway Interchange Conditional Uses Area Golden Gate Parkway Institutional Subdistrict Southbrooke Office Subdistrict Conditional Uses Subdistrict: Golden Gate Parkway Special Provisions Special Exceptions to Conditional Use Locational Criteria in Golden Gate Estates Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** A. GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES Page 1 GOAL 1: 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Ordinance - 030921 (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict GMPA) PL20200000385/ CP2020-3 March 11, 2021 Page 2 of 5 Words underlined are added; words struck-through are deletions *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** Policy 1.1.4: Page 1 The ESTATES Future Land Use Designation shall include Future Land Use Districts and Subdistricts for: A. ESTATES – MIXED USE DISTRICT *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** B. ESTATES – COMMERCIAL DISTRICT 1. Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict 2. Pine Ridge Road Mixed Use Subdistrict 3. Commercial Western Estates Infill Subdistrict 4. Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict 5. Southbrooke Office Subdistrict 6. Santa Barbara Blvd./Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** Policy 3.1.4 Page 3 Recognizing the residential nature of the land uses surrounding the I-75 interchange at Golden Gate Parkway, as well as the restrictions on conditional uses of the Conditional Uses Subdistrict of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, there shall be no further commercial zoning for properties abutting Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. No new commercial uses shall be permitted on properties abutting streets accessing Golden Gate Parkway within the above-defined segment. This policy shall not apply to that existing portion of the Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict, which is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard, or the Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict located in the southwest corner of the intersection of Santa Barbara Boulevard and Golden Gate Parkway. *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** B. LAND USE DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION SECTION [beginning Page 8] *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** 1. ESTATES DESIGNATION *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Ordinance - 030921 (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict GMPA) PL20200000385/ CP2020-3 March 11, 2021 Page 3 of 5 Words underlined are added; words struck-through are deletions B. Estates ‒ Commercial District [beginning page 14] *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** 6. Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Subdistrict [beginning page 18] This Subdistrict consists of 6.4± acres and is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Santa Barbara Boulevard and Golden Gate Parkway. The purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide commercial land uses to serve the surrounding area and traveling public. Development within the Subdistrict shall be subject to the following: a. The subdistrict shall be rezoned to a Planned Unit Development (PUD). b. The maximum commercial square footage permitted within the Subdistrict is 21,500 square feet of floor area. c. The rezone ordinance shall include development standards and buffers to insure compatibility with surrounding properties. d. Allowable uses shall be limited to those: • Uses permitted by right and by conditional uses in C-3, Commercial Intermediate Zoning District, as listed in the Collier County Land Development Code, Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended. • Carwash (SIC 7542) The rezone Ordinance shall limit these uses further to insure compatibility with surrounding properties. *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** C. List of maps [page 27] Urban Golden Gate Estates Future Land Use Map Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict Pine Ridge Road (CR 896) ‒ Interchange Activity Center and Mixed Use Subdistrict Urban Golden Gate Estates Neighborhood Centers Collier Boulevard/Pine Ridge Road Neighborhood Center Commercial Western Estates Infill Subdistrict Golden Gate Parkway Interchange Conditional Uses Area Golden Gate Parkway Institutional Subdistrict Southbrooke Office Subdistrict Conditional Uses Subdistrict: Golden Gate Parkway Special Provisions Special Exceptions to Conditional Use Locational Criteria in Golden Gate Estates Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Ordinance - 030921 (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict GMPA) I-75 S I-75 N Santa Barbara BLVDGolden Gate PKWY I- 7 5 N EXHIBIT A PL20200000385/CPSS-20-3 SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD/GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA º0 1,000 2,000500 Feet DRAFT SUBJECT SITE LEGEND ADOPTED - XXXX, XXXX (Ord. No. XXXX-X) PREPARED BY: BETH YANG, AICP GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPT. FILE: LOCATIONMAP_SANTABARBARAGOLDENGATEPKWYSUBDISTRIT.MXD DATE: JUNE 2020 URBAN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD/GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Ordinance - 030921 (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict GMPA) C.R. 951COLLIER BLVDI-75I-75INTERSTATE-75 IMMOKALEE RD IMMOKALEE RD LIVINGSTON RDTAMIAMI TRL NDAVIS BLVDGOODLETTE RD NPINE RIDGE RD RADIO RD G.G. PKWY LOGAN BLVD NSANTA BARBARA BLVDVANDERBILT BEACH RD AIRPORT PULLING RD NGOLDEN GATE BLVD 9TH ST NGREEN BLVDOLD US 41RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK RDCOUNTY BARN RDAIRPORT PULLING RD SWIGGINS PASS RD 9TH ST SI-75 SI-75 NCollier BLVDLivingston RDImmokalee RD Airport RD NTamiami TRL NDavis BLVD Pine Ridge RD Radio RD Logan BLVD NGoodlette-Frank RD NVanderbilt Beach RD Golden Gate PKWY Santa Barbara BLVD9th ST NOld 41Ta m i a m i T R L E Golden Gate BLVD W Green BLVD Rattlesnake Hammock RDAirport RD SLogan BLVD SThomasson DR 5th A V E S 111th AVE N Bayshore DRI-75 SI-75 NI-75 SI-75 SI-75 NI-75 NI-7 5 NI-75 SI-75 NBayshore DRT 51 ST 50 ST 49 ST 48 ST 47 S R 26 E R 27 E R 28 E R 29 E URBAN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES FUTURE LAND USE MAP 0 1 2 30.5 Miles PREPARED BY: BETH YANG, AICP GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPT. DATE: 06/2020 FILE: Urban GGMP_SantaBarbaraGoldenGatePkwySubdistrict.mxd ° THIS MAP CAN NOT BE INTERPRETED WITHOUT THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES AND LAND USE DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION SECTION OF THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN. NOTE : URBAN GOLDEN GATE FUTURE LAND USE MAP ADOPTED - SEPTEMBER 24, 2019 (Ord. No. 2019-25) ESTATES DESIGNATION MIXED USE DISTRICT Residential Estates Subdistrict Neighborhood Center Subdistrict Golden Gate Parkway Institional Subdistrict Conditional Uses Subdistrict Conditional Use Subdistrict: Golden Gate Parkway Special Provisions COMMERCIAL DISTRICT Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict (As Described in the Future Land Use Element in the GMP) Pine Ridge Road Mixed Use Subdistrict Commercial Western Estates Infill Subdistrict Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict Southbrooke Office Subdistrict Santa Barbara Boulevard/Golden Gate Parkway Commercial Subdistrict ADOPTED - XXXX, 2020 (Ord. No. XXXX-XX) PETITION PL20200000385 / CPSS-20-3 Santa Barbara Boulevard/Golden Gate Parkway Commercial Subdistrict DRAFT EXHIBIT "A" 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Ordinance - 030921 (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 142Attachment: Attachment A FDOT PD&E Study 2001 (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict 9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 143Attachment: Attachment A FDOT PD&E Study 2001 (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict 9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 144Attachment: Attachment A FDOT PD&E Study 2001 (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict 9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 145Attachment: Attachment A FDOT PD&E Study 2001 (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict 9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 146Attachment: Attachment A FDOT PD&E Study 2001 (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict 9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 147Attachment: Attachment A FDOT PD&E Study 2001 (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict 9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 148Attachment: Attachment A FDOT PD&E Study 2001 (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict 9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 149Attachment: Attachment A FDOT PD&E Study 2001 (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict 9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 150Attachment: Attachment A FDOT PD&E Study 2001 (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict 9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 151Attachment: Attachment A FDOT PD&E Study 2001 (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict 9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 152Attachment: Attachment A FDOT PD&E Study 2001 (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict 9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 153Attachment: Attachment A FDOT PD&E Study 2001 (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict 9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 154Attachment: Attachment A FDOT PD&E Study 2001 (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict 9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 155Attachment: Attachment A FDOT PD&E Study 2001 (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict 9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 156Attachment: Attachment A FDOT PD&E Study 2001 (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict 9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 157Attachment: Attachment A FDOT PD&E Study 2001 (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict 9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 158Attachment: Attachment A FDOT PD&E Study 2001 (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict 9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 159Attachment: Attachment A FDOT PD&E Study 2001 (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict 9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 160Attachment: Attachment A FDOT PD&E Study 2001 (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict 9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 161Attachment: Attachment A FDOT PD&E Study 2001 (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict 9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 162Attachment: Attachment A FDOT PD&E Study 2001 (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict 9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 163Attachment: Attachment A FDOT PD&E Study 2001 (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict 9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 164Attachment: Attachment A FDOT PD&E Study 2001 (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict 9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 165Attachment: Attachment A FDOT PD&E Study 2001 (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict 9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 166Attachment: Attachment A FDOT PD&E Study 2001 (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict 9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 167Attachment: Attachment A FDOT PD&E Study 2001 (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict RESOLUTION 07- 138 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE WHICH ALLOWS A SOCIAL CLUB IN THE ESTATES ZONING DISTRICT PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.04.03, TABLE 2, OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, FOR PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE NAPLES BRIDGE CENTER, LOCATED AT 5865 GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 47 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 67-1246, Laws of Florida, and Chapter 125, 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 ofthe public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended) which includes a Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance establishing regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of Conditional Uses; and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 80-128, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A," the Board of County Commissioners approved a Provisional Use for the establishment of the Naples Bridge Club pursuant to Section 14-1 D of the then-current Zoning Regulations, subject to a number of conditions; and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 94-424, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B," the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County approved a Conditional Use for the expansion of the Naples Bridge Center in accordance with a conceptual master plan, subject to a number of conditions; and WHEREAS, the Naples Bridge Center, Inc., has filed Petition No. CU-2006-AR- 11034, requesting an expansion to the existing conditional use to allow a building addition of 3,500 square feet and 50 additional parking spaces; and WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Appeals, being the duly appointed and constituted plarming board for the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of allowing this requested expansion of the existing Conditional Use pursuant to Section 2.04.03, Table 2 of the Collier County Land Development Code in the Estates zoning district on the property hereinafter described, and the Collier County Plarming Commission has found as a matter of fact Exhibit "C") that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Subsection 1O.08.00.D. of the Land Development Code; and Page 1 of2 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Resolution 2007-138 (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict GMPA) WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this 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: Petition CU-220-AR-ll034, filed by Joss Nageon de Lastang, P.E. of Gulfshore Engineering, Inc., representing the Naples Bridge Center, Inc., with respect to the property hereinafter described in Exhibit "D," is hereby approved for a Conditional Use pursuant to Section 2.04.03, Table 2 of the Collier County Land Development Code in the Estates Zoning District, for a social club in accordance with the Conceptual Site Plan attached hereto as Exhibit "E," subject to the previously required conditions set forth in Resolution No. 80- 128 and Resolution No. 94-424, copies of which are attached hereto, together with the conditions set forth in Exhibit "F" attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution hereby supersedes and replaces both Resolution No. 80-128 and Resolution No. 94-424, excepting the conditions set forth therein, which are incorporated by reference into this Resolution, and that the remainder of Resolution No. 80-128 and Resolution No. 94-424 are accordingly repealed. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Board. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and super-majority vote, this~day of 2007. ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: Attest .. signature By dd~ Ap an w t County Attorney Page 2 of2 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Resolution 2007-138 (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict GMPA) V~- C R-80-128 p,,-- r....!t./E.C. J\Jl 10 198ClBESOLUT,~ 0 N RELATrNG TO PETITION NO. Pu-BO-4C FOR PROVISIONAL USE OF PROPER'ry HERE- INAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. OCO Chapter 125 and 163, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all WHEREAS, t~e Legislature of- the State of Florida in counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and COlllprehensive Zoning Ordinance establishing regulations for WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is t.he granting of provisional use?; and WHEREAS, the coastal Area planning commission; being the duly appoint.ed and constituted planning board for thf ~rea hereby affected, has held a'public hearing after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the ad- G in a E zone for visabili"ty of provisional Use the property hereinafter described, and has f'ound as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement has been made concerning all applicable matters required ?y said regula- tions and in accordance with Section l'4-lD of .the Zoning Regu- lations for the coastal Area flanning District; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Board in public meeting assembled and the Board having considered all matters presented. cownissioners of Collier County, .Florida, that the petition of NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of County Naples Bridge Club with respect to the property hereinafter described as: East 150 fee.t of 'l'ract 75, unit 30, Golden Gate Estates as described in plat Book 7, Page 57, public Records of Collier county, Florida EXHIBIT "A" Four Pages U::lf'fP 11 of 2 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Resolution 2007-138 (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict GMPA) be and the same is hereby avproved for provisional Use 6 of the E zoning district. for a social club subject to the following conditions: SEE ATTACHED) BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Board~ commissioner Rrm.JTI offered the foregoing resolu- tion and moved its adop'tioll, seconded"by conunisser Himer and upon roll call, the vote was: Commissioners Brown, Himer and Pis tor AYES: NAYS:Commissioners-Archer and Wenzel ABSENT AND NOT VOTING:None ABSTENTION: None Done this 8th day of July 1980 BOARD OF COUNT~ COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNT1, FLORIDA cqrL ~ A- ". lIrTIiI Vtlr. w. , v~ j:l:.\:'\<~;\ 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Resolution 2007-138 (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict GMPA) I I I i I l- I lt~:'I'.. i 0, j F~j c-',-\I ISr~~ l ' I@', !.\ rJl '.' ~ II , 0. I It' : I IF;;:; ". 'jJ1~' 1. .S!l-~ '.. j t. 1.:, , 0,~L,i\ J'" '." ". 6-~~:\'.~ . l\~)I ,~ r~ ~', V-~!- .... 1: j )'ted:' 0t1'i<~-' 2~F-~"-,i,i., '~". . olr. f :~'. y I i i I I Ji"" ,I ~I. i j. 1. l ":," ~'l:",i,t) l:1'l\ ;l:';i"jr':':!I~ ,. '4~' IIj:~ ~:rI'~, I\';C .~- ~i f';:II ., .} ~1"'"o! \-V<'1TlJ. ,:1: fl1LI ~ IiI.lllO...A ~ "l~ j i.l1 I i 0..' i C----- j'jfj1 /IIIo0.>u_1:1"\w'iIdt~ 'I t" ,In ;;11c;: E II " ~ IIj:: 1u,!II c ~ ~1?1~'~t,,,,iz 't::lI . 0' d t,l 1 g. '-~i ',-L i. Z ;\ i I I OJ.d, oj: l 1-- Ii~Y i I I j '1':;' ld"') l':"9 ',:' T."'.I, I' ),:~-j: :;. ~,::~l: 1" J 1 j> d 1 1 '. t j r 1 t, I I- i:, 11 i ~.' rl I i:" 0, R-80-12S uM"I<'l>.l'T' 'J9.A.1.dPacket Pg. 172Attachment: Resolution 2007-138 (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy A'rTACMENT 1 1. public water required. 2. Comply wi"th fire codes and hydrants. I 3. Final site drainage plan shall be submitted to County Engineer for review and approval. 4. All signs shall be approved by the zoning Director. 5. ~rovisional use expires one year from date of approval unless construction has conunenced. 6. Any expansion requires site p+an approval. See 11.-80-128 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Resolution 2007-138 (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict GMPA) RESOLUTION 94-~ A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR TKE ESTABLISHMENT OF CONDITIONAL USE "2" IN TKE "E" ESTATES ZONING DISTRICT PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION 2.2.3.3 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTION Z9, TOWNSKIP 49 SOUTK, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 67-1246, Laws of Florida, and Chapter 125, 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. 91-102) which includes a Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance establishing regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the 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, and has considered the advisability of Conditional Use "211 of Subsection 2.2.3.3 in an liE" Estates zone for a social organization on the property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact (Exhibit IIA") that satisfactory provision and arrangement has been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with subsection 2.7.4.4 of the Land Development Code for the Collier County Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this 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 Col~ier County, Florida that: 1-EXHIBIT "B" FOUR PAGES 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Resolution 2007-138 (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict GMPA) The petition filed by Fred Rathgeber representinq Naples Bridge Center, Inc., with respect to the property hereinafter described as: The East 150 feet of Tract 75, Unit 30, Go~den Gate Estates, according to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 7, paqe 58, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. be and the same is hereby approved for Conditional Use "2" of subsection 2.2.3.3 of the nEn Estates zoning district for expansion of the Naples Bridge Center in accordance with the Conceptual Master Plan (Exhibit "Bit) and sUbject to the following' conditions: 1. The Current Planning Manager may approve minor changes in the location, siting, or height of buildings, structures, and improvements authorized by the Conditional Use. Expansion of the uses identitied and approved within this Conditional Use application, or major changes to the site plan submitted as part of this application, shall require the submittal of a new Conditional Use application, and shall comply with all applicable county ordinances in effect at the time of submittal, including Division 3~3, Site Development Plan Review and approval, of the Collier County Land Development Code (Ordinance No. 9~-102)_ 2. This project shall be required to meet all County ordinances in effect at the time final construction documents are submitted for development approval. 3. Detailed pavinq, grading, site drainaqe, and utility plans shall be submitted to Project Plan Review for review~ No construction permits shall be issued unless and until approval of the proposed construction in accordance with the submitted plans is granted by Project Plan Review. 4. Prior to site Development Plan approval, a letter from the Collier County PUblic Health Unit approving the existinq septic system capacity shall be provided to Projact Plan Review. 5. All native veqetation (i.e., pines, palmettos, etc.) that tall within the interior landscape islands or can be retained for exterior or perimeter islands shall be retained. 6. No new median openings on Golden Gate Parkway shall be provided to serve this project. 7. Arterial level street lighting shall be provided by the Petitioner at the project entrance prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the expanded buildinq. 8. A minimum radius of 50 feet shall be provided at both sides of the entrance drive~ Collier county Transportation Services reserves the right to require an additional westbound right turn lane if warranted by operational conditions. 2- 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Resolution 2007-138 (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict GMPA) 9. An additiona1 40 feet of depth along the entire rontage of the subject property shall be reserved for future road right-of-way purposes. No expansion of the existing drainfield sha~l be permitted within the 40 feet of depth. 10. Per the Collier County Land Development COde, all prohibited exotic species shall be removed from the site prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 11. The proposed draft well shall provide a minimum of 500 gallons per minute of water flow (Reference: NFPA 1231 and Collier County Ordinance No. 92-72). 12. The Naples Bridge Center, Inc., shall not lease the facilities which are the subject of this conditional Use to other organizations for a purpose different than that which is the purpose of the Naples Bridge Center, Inc., in its articles of incorporation. 13. The Naples Bridge Center, Inc., agrees to participate in the cost of constructing an adequate potable water distribution transmission line along Golden Gate Parkway at such time as collier County undertakes such a capital project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Board. Commissioner Nort:'is offered the foreqoing Reso1ution and moved for its adoption, seconded by Commissioner Valne and upon roll call, the vote was: AYES: Commissioner No~ris, Commissioner Volpe~ Commissioner Saunde~s~ Commissioner Matthews and Commissione~ ConstantineNAYS: ABSENT AND NOT VOTING: ABSTENTION: Done this 14th day of June 1994. i,U'A'II'O Tt~~J!*~'~ ' DW'rGHT:'E{BRqCK;:~ CLERK tf:&)/,:.i:'~/. ,>o.e- t~~~,~~~~~~~~~ AND fn.r~..:i..1?1_IJrF"~/~d MARJ IE M. STUDENT ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY BOARD~NG APPEALS LI " ; rl'l:ta!t fHy j:i) b;STANTINE, CHAIRMAN CU-9J-~3 RESOLUTION/~~69J 3- 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Resolution 2007-138 (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict GMPA) o I o uo m D 3j; j~~ ,~~~ d'iI5;~ g lit ~ g f'l-1 ~ ~ r---I ~ '9.A.1.dPacket Pg. 177Attachment: Resolution 2007-138 (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy FINDINGS OF FACT BY COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION FOR CU-2006-AR-ll034 The following facts are found: 1. Section 10.08.00 of the Land Development Code authorizes the conditional use. 2, Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and will not adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or neighborhood because of: A. Consistency with the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan: Yes V" No B. Ingress and egress to 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: Adequate ingress & egress YesL No_ C. Affects neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor effects: o affect or _ Affect mitigated by <text> Affect cannot be mitigated D. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district: Compatible use within district YesL' No_ Based on the above findings, this conditional use should, with stipulations, (copy attached) should not) be recommended for approval. DATE: t...i - l Q/o1 CHAIRMAN: EXHIBIT "e" 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Resolution 2007-138 (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict GMPA) FINDING OF FACT BY COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION. FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION FOR CU-2006-AR-l1034 The following facts are found: 1. Section 10.08.00 of the Land Development Code authorized the conditional Use. 2. Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and 'Will not adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or ne\ghborhoo d because of: A. Consistency Witll the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan: Yes ~No B. Ingress and egress to pIoperty 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: Adequate ingr'ess & egress / , Yes V No C. Affects neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor effects: No affect or _Affect mitigated by Affect cannot be mitigated D. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district: Compatible use within district Yes .c.../No Based on the above fmdings, this conditional use should., with stipulations, (copy attached) should not) be reco=ended fOI approval. DATE: y II 7 / {, /7 I i II 'L"",MEMBER: ~..~ . ~ I EXHIBIT "e" 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Resolution 2007-138 (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict GMPA) FINDING OF FACT BY COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION. FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION FOR CU-2006-AR-l1034 The following facts are found: 1. Section 10,08,00 of the Land Development Code authorized the conditional Use. 2. Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and vvill not adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or neighborhoOd because of: A.Consistency with the Land D/lopment Code and Growth Management Plan: Yes / No B.Ingress and egress to 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: Adequate ingress & egress . Yes / No C. Affects neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor effect/-" ' , L No affect or ---'- Affect mitigated by Affect cannot be mitigated D. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district: Compatible use within district Yes / No Based on the above fIndings, this conditional use should, with stipulations, should not) be recommended for approval. DATE:tj ~/ 11/M:EM:BER: jf.h..-T VIe.. Ov7T/' EXHIBIT "e" 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Resolution 2007-138 (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict GMPA) FINDING OF FACT BY COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION FOR CU-2006-AR-ll034 The following facts are found: 1. Section 10.08,00 of the Land Development Code authorized the conditional use, 2. Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and will not adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or neighborhood because of: A. Consistency with the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan: Yes~ No_ B. Ingress and egress to 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: Adequate ingress & egress Yes )C No C. Affects neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor effects: X No affect or _ Affect mitigated by Affect carmot be mitigated D. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district: Compatible use within district Ye;( No Based on the above findings, this conditional use should, with stipulations, (copy attached) should not) be recommended for approval. DATE:f- /Cj- 07 MEMBE~ EXHIBIT "e" 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Resolution 2007-138 (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict GMPA) FINDING OF FACT BY COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION FOR CU-2006-AR-ll034 The following facts are found: 1. Section 10.08,00 of the Land Development Code authorized the conditional use. 2. Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and will not adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or neighborhood because of: A. B. Consistency with the Lanivelopment Code and Growth Management Plan: Yes No Ingress and egress to 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: Adequate ingress & egress / Yes L No C.Affect7neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor effects: i No affect or _ Affect mitigated by Affect cannot be mitigated D.Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district: Comp'titiI, ~, witllln "1Yes No Based on the above findings, this conditional use should, [.th stipulations, (copy attached) should not) be recommended for approval. ~ DATE: 4 I~ 0 MEMBER: Vi- EXHIBIT "e" 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Resolution 2007-138 (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict GMPA) FINDING OF FACT BY COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION FOR CU-2006-AR-ll034 The following facts are found: 1. Section 10,08.00 of the Land Development Code authorized the conditional use, 2. Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and will not adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or neighborhood because of: A. Consistency with the Land De4ent Code and Growth Management Plan: Yes / NO._ ' B. Ingress and egress to 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: A'''I""k in8'O"' & '8'0'/ Yes No_ C. boring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor No affect or _ Affect mitigated by Affect carmot be mitigated D. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district: Compatible use within district/ Yes ~ No Based on the above findings, this conditional use should, with stipulations, (copy attached) should not) be recommended for approval. DATE: tf--- /1- () 7 MEMBER'~ EXHIBIT "G" 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Resolution 2007-138 (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict GMPA) FINDING OF FACT BY COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION FOR CU-2006-AR-ll034 The following facts are found: 1. Section 10.08.00 of the Land Development Code authorized the conditional use. 2. Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and will not adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or neighborhood because of: A. Consistency with the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan: Yes J No B. Ingress and egress to 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: Adequate ingress & egress Yes ,/No C. Affects neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor e;S: No affect or _ Affect mitigated by Affect carmot be mitigated D. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district: Compatible use within d7tYes No 4 I Based on the above findings, this conditional use should, wit I stipulations, (copy attached) should not) be recommended for approval. DATE:~MEMBER: \ t>(ljo0C,;i..'i}~~ EXHIBIT "c" 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Resolution 2007-138 (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict GMPA) c. " FINDING OF FACT BY COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION FOR CU-2006-AR-ll034 The following facts are found: 1. Section 10,08.00 of the Land Development Code authorized the conditional use, 2. Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and will not adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or neighborhood because of: A. Consistency with the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan: Yes~ No_ B. Ingress and egress to 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: Adequate ingress & egress YesL No C. Affects neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor effects: 1 No affect or _ Affect mitigated by Affect carmot be mitigated D. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district: Compatible use within district Yes'; No Based on the above findings, this conditional use should, with stipulations, (copy attached) should not) be recommended for approval. DATE: -1./ f -11 "7 MEMBER: 'Z: gf/# EXHIBIT "en 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Resolution 2007-138 (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict GMPA) FINDING OF FACT BY COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION FOR CU-2006-AR-ll034 The following facts are found: 1. Section 10,08.00 of the Land Development Code authorized the conditional use. 2. Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and will not adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or neighborhood because 0 f: A. Consistency with the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan: Yes v' No B. Ingress and egress to 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: Adequate ingress & egress Yes vi No C. Affects neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor effects: V' No affect or _ Affect mitigated by Affect carmot be mitigated 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:tj/rl J (J 1 I ( ( MEMBER:f/JhJn~ /3-t~ ~CtAtJ-~ EXHIBIT "C" 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Resolution 2007-138 (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict GMPA) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PROPERTY DESCRIPTION o'R 1574, PG, 943) THE EAST ,150 FEET OF TRACT 75, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, UNIT 30, ACCORDING TO PLAT IN PLAT BOOK 7, PAGE 58, ,PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CoNT AINING 2,04 ACRES, MORE DR LESS. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD. EXHIBIT "0" 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Resolution 2007-138 (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict GMPA) SETBACK RESIDENTIAL ESTA TES-E-ZDNING] ENCLOSED FRONT LOADING TRASH DUMPSTER SETBACK WEST LINE -TRACT 75 GOLDEN GA TE ESTATES, UNIT 30. I- 15'_ E SETBACK o TYPE ~B" o 1!5'BUFFER w W APPROX. Z LOCATlON 01'_ THEEXlSTlNG DRAlNflELO PROPERTYLINE RESIDENTIALESTATES-E-ZONING]i ~ L iIIIill !i ! ~ , ! -"I <I i dil i HI i1I!!!! I l!~1 jo.!!!! . ., .lEi. -t. i ! ii' 1B -7"'.... ," ~~! "Inl~,..~,' I r:J@nll!llULlliJIIJU ,I; Iih " l; 5 i l", ~~ i o 'i', to<" "ffi~iu .."58 :> 1111 i!' J~~ ~I o ffi "~!ll'i i"::' j) s'" EXISTING PAVEMENT RESIDENTIAL ESTATES-E-ZDNING] TYPEMBM 1!1'BUFFER CW Z 0" SETBACK .. .. Z . 0 > w .. w'l Zo: c 0 :cw i w w ..Z 15"tj w c Z;i DISCHARGE Z W c 900 ~ cO: ROADWAY 0 0 SWALE F~' !ZCl~TYPEno" I'-E:~ C "'-LlIl 8 H-!- qI EXISTING SlGNAGE ON BLDMOREMAlNL _ _ _ GOLDEN GA TE PKWY lllt:: ::J \';J z :l~J'-'0::wo-ZzwtulwCl0 t- 0:: o:al Wu>Zw 00.. Z Z < 3 ~ a s~ l ~ ~ 5 lil ,': z ~ i ~ w~~~f c! "l:i g ~~~~ 0:: ~:i ~ ~ i! \:l 0:: > l!:! w w w olil > g: u:l !...J ffi...J W rtI:! ~:! g: ~ ~ If ~ 1 " l. in Iii I' ~: J=: f:;. It'li HI 3 I H Hi ! i I i z M gEN_....lS~u...~mMMN m0:: Zl!!w~ZlIlo..W:::>wu..J....w oc( enClZ.....00<(01i==> al2i~ U>Zw Wou UZ 0 Z U ih r--ii ~j ~Ii ~ l~ ~ I g u~ u f- ee J: UJ I. . i I f~ r i . I llIf r' i Ii l~~llIf1,1 I~ !hl I ~h. I, I -, g!fI:_ ~ 11:.. ~ iP' ! t.+- 31! '-~2 ie; I I. i ,. I I i~ l I , i;iiB8 188 it. l-~"''''''' I I' ,I , il~88'!.. -~, i'" I ; I II h i~-1S:18 ~ Ilrno I. I IIi!8~';;,~ 1,1'_ 0'010 . I ~ ~ i 19.A.1.dPacket Pg. 188Attachment: Resolution 2007-138 (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL FOR CU-2006-AR-II034 1. The Naples Bridge Center shall not lease the facilities which are the subj ect of this Conditional Use. 2, The applicant shall incorporate the outdoor lighting standards outlined in Golden Gate Area Master Plan Policy 5.1.1 into the site plan during the SDP review process. 3. The applicant shall locate the dumpster a minimum of 40 feet away from any adjacent residential property line. EXHIBIT "F" G: Current{ Gundlach/ Conditional Uses/ Naples Bridge Center /Exhibit "F" Conditions 4-23-07 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Resolution 2007-138 (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: NIM Documents (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict GMPA) PL20200000385 Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict and PL20200000386 3001 SB CPUD Rezone, August 13, 2020 NIM Page 1 of 12 Wayne Arnold: Well, good evening everybody. My name is Wayne Arnold, and I'm a planner with Q. Grady Minor & Associates, representing the applicant Racetrac, tonight. Have several people from our team that are present. We have Rich Yovanovich, who is the land use council. We have Yury Bykau from TR Transportation, our transportation consultant. We have Peninsula Engineering and Bruce Layman here is our environmental consultant. And this is Sharon Umpenhour, who is going to be taping and helping us with the presentation. This is also available on Zoom. We had some of the County participants are participating via Zoom and our applicant is in Atlanta tonight and couldn't make it down to Naples, so he's participating by Zoom. If there are questions, we're hoping that the audio works well enough. If not all, whatever comments are made on the computer, if we can't hear them on the audio here, I'll be happy to repeat those and we'll make sure the records um, available for everybody. Sharon's going to be also recording this. We have to provide a transcript of this meeting to the County; it's just part of the review process. Tom Hardy with Racetrac and Cleo Chang from Racetrac are both on Zoom and are available here to listen in and offer any comments as necessary. From the County, it looks like signed in, we have Nancy Gundlach, who's the principal planner in zoning, who's handling the zoning application. And Anita Jenkins – she's in charge of both zoning and planning for the County. She's here, I think, representing the conference planning site tonight for the plan amendment application that's also a companion to the zoning application. With that, Connie, if you want to just advance that to the aerial location map. So, we're here representing two applications tonight. As I mentioned, there's a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment to the Golden Gate area master plan that we're proposing. It does two things. One, there are two provisions. One of them directly affects this property. Well, they both directly affect this property, but 6.4 acres, church is existing on the site, has been for many, many years. We're proposing to create a new planning sub-district that would allow this to be commercial, in addition to the church. The application that we're proposing would allow for us to have C3 type commercial uses, as well as limited C4 general commercial uses, one of which we've identified could be a carwash. So, that's the comp plan designation we would create. There's a companion zoning amendment that would change the zoning from E-Estates to a planned unit development for commercial development. We have a master plan that I'll walk you through momentarily. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: NIM Documents (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict GMPA) PL20200000385 Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict and PL20200000386 3001 SB CPUD Rezone, August 13, 2020 NIM Page 2 of 12 But there are two applications. Right now, the Golden Gate master plan does not permit true commercial development on the site. Frankly, it doesn't even permit a church by standard. The only thing that's permitted here is one house per two and a quarter acres. Given the location of this at the intersection of Santa Barbara and Golden Gate, two six lane roads. The intersection is huge; it's not likely that anybody's going to put a single-family home on that location. So, we're in the review process now. This is a required meeting by the County. Once we submitted our applications and they've had a chance to review them, we then have an opportunity to come out to the community and hold a neighborhood meeting to tell you what we're doing, obtain some input from you. If you have any questions or comments, then those comments are recorded and they're provided on to the County staff, as well as the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners for them to have as part of the public hearing process. This is not a public hearing tonight. This is an informational meeting. There will be a Planning Commission hearing in several months, when we get through the sufficiency review of our applications, and then that's followed by a Board of County Commissioner action that would take final action to either approve or deny or approve with conditions what were proposing. Connie, if you could move that along to the next one. This is another location exhibit. It shows you that – I'm sure most of you must be familiar or neighbors to the property, but the church property is existing. We have the school, obviously, now to the South. Um, we have commercial and residential to the East. And then, of course we have the States Residential West of us, and then to the North is the undeveloped property that's been zoned for some time for office and medical office uses. Do you want to advance that, Connie? I appreciate it. This is just a highlight slide telling you that we were are in for two applications, as I mentioned, an amendment to the master plan for Golden Gate, and it a zoning change to change it from E-Estates to a commercial plan development. It's known as a project named 3001 Santa Barbara commercial. It's about 6.4 acres in size. Next slide please, Connie. Again, so to reiterate, the small-scale amendment application would allow us to have a maximum of 21,500 square feet of commercial uses on the site, as well as the C3 and limited C4 uses. Then the rezoning we carry forward those same things with a maximum 21,500 square feet of commercial land usage. And what we have on the next page is the actual sub-district language. Connie, if you don't mind moving that slide. This is the 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: NIM Documents (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict GMPA) PL20200000385 Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict and PL20200000386 3001 SB CPUD Rezone, August 13, 2020 NIM Page 3 of 12 formality of what would get inserted into the Golden Gate master plan that says we have to rezone this to a PUD. We're restricted to a maximum of 21,500 square feet. We have to make sure that our PUD accommodates appropriate buffer setbacks dimensional standards, which would be setbacks in building heights, et cetera. And then, there's also language that restricts this to C1 through C3 commercial uses and limited C4 uses. Next slide, Connie. This is how the permitted use section is setup in the PUD. We've identified that we're allowed to do all the C1 through C3 commercial, which is the office commercial through intermediate commercial uses, as well as limited C4. Right now, we've identified car washes as one of those C4 uses we know. We're still reviewing to make sure that there's not others that we need to have, but we'll certainly – anybody who's here tonight would like to make sure we have contact information if you signed in on the sign in sheet, or you want to provide Sharon your name, or there's other contact information at the end where you can log in and view this in real time as it goes through the review process, to see what things may change as we go through the review. Next slide, Connie. Sort of Unique to several projects in Golden Gate, we've come up with a long list of prohibited uses, because neighbors have formally said, well, there's a lot of uses in C1 through C3, or even C4, that we certainly don't want to see. So, we started creating a list of prohibited uses, and this has health services, day labor type things. We've prohibited soup kitchens and homeless shelters, hospitals and specialty hospitals for psychiatric care and drug rehabilitation, and things of that nature. Those are all prohibited. That's a list that we have that are things that we can't do on the site. Next slide, Connie. This is our conceptual master plan. We're working to add more detail to this, but at this moment, this is where we are. So, on the top of the page is Golden Gate Parkway. To the right side of the page is Santa Barbara Boulevard. We're proposing to have two access points on Golden Gate and have one access point on the far South end of our property on Santa Barbara. The access points, we're negotiating those with Collier County Transportation staff right now. We're hopeful that we can get a left directional access into the site, which would put it probably on the far Western portion of the property. Internally there will probably be a series of frontage roads and connecting roads so you can travel from Golden Gate Parkway and then onto Santa Barbara Boulevard. And we have a small water management area we're proposing and some of the native vegetation that's onsite will be 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: NIM Documents (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict GMPA) PL20200000385 Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict and PL20200000386 3001 SB CPUD Rezone, August 13, 2020 NIM Page 4 of 12 mitigated offsite. There's a small cluster of trees that really don't function as habitat or tree clusters so we'll be either making those trees up onsite or we'll be going offsite to mitigate for those. But internally we've provided– It's hard to see on this screen, unfortunately, but probably the most intense use would be limited to the corner. And then, we have three other potential lots that are part of that. So, four total lots we're looking at for the property. Next slide, Connie. This is probably hard to see on this screen. The clarity's not great, but this is the master plan that I was just showing you overlaid on an aerial photograph so you can get an idea of just how it relates to the current improvements and what's around us. And again, showing the access points with arrows on there, we have a 25 to 30-foot wide buffer on our western boundary. And it's varied because we've asked for a couple of deviations that – for an internal buffer in between out parcels, if we utilize that and put in narrower internal buffers, we have to increase the buffer on our western property boundary to 30 feet. So, it would be in flux somewhere between 25 and 30 feet. Connie, next slide, please. Our PUD also contains development standards. This is what I referred to with those dimensional criteria that we have. We've identified required setbacks from Golden Gate and Santa Barbara, as well as our western PUD boundary. We've established maximum building heights and minimum structure sizes as well as our total maximum square feet of 21,500 that I previously mentioned. Next slide, Connie. So, we have a few deviations that are related to signage. These are specific to gas station user that have been approved for other sites around Collier County. I'm not going to go through the details of them, but they're signage for facilities with fuel pumps, and they are to allow – really the way the county structured the code and, Rich, you've done all of them so I think if you need to answer this, feel free to jump in, but these are – the county's code is really specific and was very generic. Racetrac in this example has a very specific program for signage that they've used and would like to use here as well. So, that's what those deviations will allow us to do. Next slide, please. These were the landscape deviations, and this would allow us to have internal lesser setbacks between out parcel users while putting the larger buffer to the external side of the western side of the property, as well as putting different sized trees in. And that was something that staff had asked us to do as part of the deviation request. Next slide, please. So, the presentation, it's a very quick overview but this is some contact information, and I'll just leave that up for a 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: NIM Documents (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict GMPA) PL20200000385 Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict and PL20200000386 3001 SB CPUD Rezone, August 13, 2020 NIM Page 5 of 12 moment. And this tells you how you can access these documents and our application materials online through either our GradyMinor.com website or collier county's web portal that they have, which is available on their city view site. I'm not sure if any of you all go to the county government website, but through their development review, you can go on and look at our application as well as all the submittal documents that we make, all the staff comments that are made. And our next steps after that will be to – you'll see, once we get through the next probably two or three months worth of reviews with staff, we'll get to a point where they tell us we're ready to go to a planning commission hearing. So, then that's the point at which you'll see the four by eight signs you've seen at other places be posted on the site. And those would have the dates of the hearings. If you received a mail notice for this meeting, you should receive a mail notice from Collier County for those public hearings as well. And as I said, the final action would be taken by the Board of County Commissioners, but we don't have firm hearing dates established for those yet. So, with that, I'll end my presentation and try to entertain questions. And then, like I said, we have Tom Hardy from Racetrac who can answer questions, Rich, financial questions, or if you have traffic questions, we can deal with them, too. Sharon Umpenhour: You don't think we'll need to use the microphone? Wayne: Yeah. I'm not sure exactly how some – I think the other microphone – just so we can make sure everybody hears, if we wouldn't mind speaking into the microphone. If you can come forward and maybe try not to touch it. That way we can try to be as sanitary as possible. But if you wouldn't mind coming forward to ask a question, and one of the things that the county has asked us to do is to make sure that– And if you don't want to reveal your name, that's okay. But they want to try to distinguish when they read a transcript, whether it's me speaking or one of the applicant's team that's speaking versus a member of the public. So, if you feel comfortable giving your name, feel free. If you don't, just say I'm a member of the public, and here's my question or comment. So, with that, if anybody has any questions raise your hand or make your way to the microphone that Sharon placed over here on the side, and we will try to capture everything. No? Somebody's got to have a question or comment. There we go. Okay. Eric Hope: Hello, I'm Eric. I'm a neighbor here. My only question is with the boundary line of their proposed plan, but it's right up on somebody's driveway. Is there any plan to do some kind of sound 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: NIM Documents (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict GMPA) PL20200000385 Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict and PL20200000386 3001 SB CPUD Rezone, August 13, 2020 NIM Page 6 of 12 wall or some kind of major block? Because that would be really annoying to me if I live right next door to that. Wayne: Well, the county's buffering standards – I think it's a Type B buffer that's required, and it requires at least a test requirement. I don't know that we've gotten far enough along in our planning to know that we've got a sound wall or anything like that planned, but certainly the applicant's listening in and hearing your comments as well, so. [Crosstalk] Wayne: Thank you. Yes, sir. Bill Desaro: Hi, I'm Bill Desaro. On slide 11, the traffic pattern – Wayne: Can you come back to that, Connie? Slide 11, please. Bill: On the top of the screen there, it shows a turn in from the westbound lane. That's a significant concern. If anybody that lives close by this corner knows that the traffic going eastbound at any given time, especially during rush hour, stacks up back to 58th Street. Um, so to try to make – and plus, when that turn lane going north um, is backed up, and that's a red light for the turn lane, green light going east on Golden Gate Parkway. People coming westbound would be trying to cross over a red light, stopped traffic, and then a green-lighted other three lanes of traffic doing high rate of speed – just let's face it. On Golden Gate Parkway, people do 60 miles an hour easily all day long. So, if you're trying to go from the westbound lane, cut across 60 miles an hour traffic after trying to cut through people that are sitting there parked, waiting for the light to change, I really hope the county is going to reconsider that because that's – people are going to die there. I think that's just definite. And then, after a couple of accidents happen, then they'll probably change it. So, hopefully they're proactive in taking measures to not allow some – we have enough people that come down that way and turn around at 58th and go back on Golden Gate Parkway. Most of us would be more okay with that even though it's not optimum solution either, but that turn in on the top part of the page there is, in my opinion, just not an option. Wayne: Yeah, and we're through our first review with the county, and I don't think that they have blessed any part of the application yet. So, I appreciate your comments, and we'll certainly … the county 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: NIM Documents (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict GMPA) PL20200000385 Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict and PL20200000386 3001 SB CPUD Rezone, August 13, 2020 NIM Page 7 of 12 staff is listening and I'm sure they're taking notes on that as well. Bill: I have another question of you. Wayne: Sure. Bill: I know that you're at the beginning of this whole process, do you have a um, potential site plan or layout of how this is going to potentially lay out on the property? Wayne: We are working on that. Racetrac Petroleum is looking at that. Obviously, we think that the gas station component, if they move ahead with that, would be on the corner parcel. And orientation, obviously of the pump and canopy islands would face either Santa Barbara or Golden Gate, one of the two. I mean, we've all driven past a number of these – Bill: Of course. I mean, I go to a Racetrac every day at work. I have no issue with them as a corporation. They're great. The manager that I speak to every morning to get coffee is awesome. I know that they do a nice job with their buildings and maintain everything well. So, that's not the concern I don't think for any of us. I don't think the concern really is that we don't want it. I don't know. It's not necessarily a bad thing to bring it to the area. It could be a nice little anchor as opposed to the church that's just sitting there kind of deteriorating. But, I think the major concern is obviously traffic. We have enough traffic as it is. Not sure that this is going to bring really any more or less, to be honest. But um, for people that live um, near the boundaries on the um, west side, also on the north side, even on the south side, any of the boundaries, um, we would be concerned with how the building lays out simply because of um, the time of day. You know, if the car wash opens at 7:00 a.m. you got those big blowers. It's configured in a manner where let's just say towards the west, you have the exit for the car wash. I'm not saying this is how it's going to be, but potentially if it is, you have a person coming out of a car wash at 7:00 a.m. big blowers going, vacuum area, vacuums are running. That kind of thing. Also, if it's configured a certain way, Racetrac has a dumpster. I'm sure that the carting companies come early in the morning, 5:30 in the morning, whatever, pick up the dumpsters. Our concern and I speak for a couple people that I know and speak to, that would be a concern. If and when the whole process takes place, that they would consider our input in terms of how they can configure things that would be less intrusive into our daily life. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: NIM Documents (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict GMPA) PL20200000385 Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict and PL20200000386 3001 SB CPUD Rezone, August 13, 2020 NIM Page 8 of 12 Wayne: Absolutely. I know that they will, and I know staff will demand that as well. I appreciate your comments so much. Sharon: What was your name, sir? Bill: Bill Desario. Wayne: Thank you. Anything else? Bill: I think it's good. Wayne: Okay. Bill: For the moment. Wayne: You can come back to it. Bill: Thank you. Appreciate it. Wayne: Yes, ma'am. Robin McDonald: – I actually have two concerns. One is that Golden Gate Parkway was supposed to be a green exit, no gas stations, no fast food, so on and so forth. My concern is that this is going to crack the door to other things along the exit, McDonalds, Burger Kings, so on and so forth. The other concern is your right next to a school and you're serving alcohol. I don't think that's a very good idea. Wayne: Okay. Well, thank you for that. Sharon: What was your name, ma'am? Robin: Robin McDonald. Wayne: The County – this is Wayne Arnold, just so the record can catch that, the county does have standards for consumption on premises. If it's served in a setting such as a restaurant or something, they aren't allowed within 500 feet of schools and churches and things like that. We couldn't have a standalone bar or things like that, but consumption on the premises is permitted. We added language to the code that says that we're basically entitled to have that because there are, obviously, enough convenience gas stations that all sell beer, wine, et cetera. That, obviously, is a component if the gas station component moves ahead. Just to be clear on that. The other, with regard to your green comment, the county does severely limit 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: NIM Documents (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict GMPA) PL20200000385 Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict and PL20200000386 3001 SB CPUD Rezone, August 13, 2020 NIM Page 9 of 12 the commercial along this corridor. They didn't want commercial right at the interchange. Rich worked for David Lawrence for instance. He's been here for almost 30 years at their location. To expand, it took a comprehensive plan amendment and a lot of time and effort to get them to expand the bingo hall to work on as well, and that was a similar item. So, it's not an easy process to do that. This is two miles from the interstate. I'm not quite sure where they are replacing non-residential use today. Wayne: Yes ma'am. Richard Yovanovich: Just too, Wayne to add. I don't know if this was your comment or not. Richard Yovanovich for the record make sure the Plan Commission knows who it is. There's a prohibition in the comprehensive plan at the interstate to prohibit any commercial uses at the interstate. Was that what your comment was referring to because that's where it's absolutely prohibited? Robin: Originally when they were talking about – because I've been here since before the exchange, is they said that from the Livingston, which wasn't even there anymore. At that time, it was Airport Road and Santa Barbara, that there would be nothing commercial, that churches were allowed. Um, David Lawrence was already existing so that was the church on the corner – Richard: No, I know. You're absolutely right. The comprehensive plan. Robin: And the bridge club. All of that was already there. Richard: They've been here forever, yeah. Female Speaker: So, why don't we have a gas station here? Richard: Well, what – Robin: It was said that it would stay green from the Santa Barbara to Airport Road. No convenience, no gas station, no fast food. Richard: If I can, I'll briefly say and then Wayne can take over. A woman from the audience asked, why are we asking for gas station? Why are we asking to change this corner? Female Speaker: Right, especially with the car wash. Richard: I understand the car wash comment. I think the reality is, and I've been here 30 years and you guys probably here at least that long, if 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: NIM Documents (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict GMPA) PL20200000385 Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict and PL20200000386 3001 SB CPUD Rezone, August 13, 2020 NIM Page 10 of 12 not longer. I used to live in the apartments right by the county park on this street, so I'm very familiar with this area. I don't think anybody envisioned how big this intersection became from two six-lane roads. I mean, it's got to be, if it's not the largest intersection in Collier County, it's got to be pretty close to one of the biggest intersections. This property, I think we all have to acknowledge, is not an appropriate residential piece of property. Just like we went through the same change, Wayne and I worked on, I’m directionally challenged, the northwest quadrant right across the street. I think people acknowledged that was not an appropriate residential piece of property either. We are going through this process because there are some exceptions to that general rule that you didn't want to have a long corridor of non- residential uses on the Golden Gate Parkway. That's why we're going through this process because I think that with the change of circumstances surrounding this intersection. I don't think it's an appropriate residential piece of property. That's why we don't think Robin: There's actually been several new residences built along the Parkway. Richard: Oh, I don't doubt that. Robin: It just seems to be the right person who would want it, and there's already an existing church. So, that's an expense. That's probably why somebody hasn't approached that for the property. Richard: Well, it's – I can tell you, I think that. I don't know who that buyer is that wants to live on a six-lane by six-lane intersection. I agree further up and down Golden Gate Parkway, you can properly buffer yourself and make sure you have easier access to the property now. I don't think this is that site that really lends itself to residential. Wayne: Thank you. Ma'am, want to go ahead? Leighanne Dietrich: Yeah. My name Leighanne Dietrich. I'm concerned about the – back to Bill Desaro's question, that entrance there and exit, ingress, egress I'm afraid that when you do that, you'll block off turning left into 58th Street Southwest, which is where I live. And I don't want it to end up like they did 70th Street, where you have to go – I don't even know how far you have to go. Eric Hope: You have to go to a back road to get to another road – Leighanne: Yeah. That would really tick me off. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: NIM Documents (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict GMPA) PL20200000385 Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict and PL20200000386 3001 SB CPUD Rezone, August 13, 2020 NIM Page 11 of 12 Sharon: What's your name, ma'am? Leighanne: Leighanne Dietrich. Wayne: Thank you. Anybody else have questions or comments? No? If you don't then we'll adjourn the meeting. Sharon: Do you want to ask our Zoom participants? Wayne: Do you have any, do you have any comments or questions you want to make or Nancy or Anita? Do you have any comments you need to make? Nancy Gundlach: Thank you for your presentation. Thank you to all the attendees who came out tonight. Wayne: Thank you. It sounds like we just had a rain shower. Sharon: Could you hear us okay? Wayne: Thank you for coming out. Nancy: Yes. Wayne: Good. Thank you, Nancy. Thank you with that, are we adjourned? Thank you all. Female Speaker: I have one question; does the car wash have to go with it? Can't we just not have a car wash, if we have to have a gas station? Wayne: Well, we think the carwash kind of goes hand in hand with a gas station. Female Speaker: But this is Golden Gate – Richard: I understand, that’s why we have these meetings. Let us go back and talk to our client. Female Speaker: Please, no car wash, it's going to be bad enough as it is for those of us who use Golden Gate Parkway continuously. We have no choice. I tried to get in a neighbor here. Wayne: And as Rich mentioned, that's why we have these meetings to share with you and hear your concerns so we'll be talking to our client. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: NIM Documents (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict GMPA) PL20200000385 Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict and PL20200000386 3001 SB CPUD Rezone, August 13, 2020 NIM Page 12 of 12 Female Speaker: I'm totally against the whole thing the gas station, the carwash is even worse. Bill: Okay. The other car wash aspect to it would be that there's a brand new one right at Berkshire. There's also brand new renovated one down the street. The level wash, the biggest, knocked down that building, fully completed, renovated that. That's a brand new carwash. Its just a little bit east, maybe a mile or so east. And then, you have the other one that's a little bit south. Wayne: We're still recording this by the way, just to make sure we're– if you don't mind coming to the microphone, just to make sure it's there, appreciate it. Bill: The car wash issue. I'll just reiterate what I said, so that everybody can hear. It would be something to take into consideration for the project developer and the owner. Being that we have a brand-new carwash, maybe a mile or so, right at Berkshire Plaza next to Publix. There's also a brand new one that they fully renovated about a mile East into Golden Gate City, a little bit, about a brand new Lava wash there. So, you would have three car washes within probably a two square mile area. All brand new competing for business. I'm all for competition and driving prices of car washes down, that would be fine by me. But, I'm not sure as a business venture for somebody that would be a smart idea. Unless you come in with the king of car washes and just blow everybody else out of the water. And then, the other issue after that, down the road would be what happens if they put the other two car washes out of business? It seems you know like we have enough car washes, that wouldn't be ultimately my decision. It would be a concern, certainly a noise concern from residents locally. That's why I was concerned about the configuration of the buildings on the property, in which way they face the residences and all that. Wayne: Okay. Thank you. Appreciate your comments on that. Anything else? If not, adjourned. Thank you all very much. Sharon: Okay. We're saying goodbye now. [End of Audio] Duration: 28 minutes 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: NIM Documents (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict GMPA) Petitions:PL20200000385 Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict and;PL20200000386 3001 SB CPUD Rezone August 13, 2020 Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: NIM Documents (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate •RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc. –Applicant •Tom Hardy, Director of Engineering –RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc. •Cleo Chang, Engineering Project Analyst –RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc. •Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq., Land Use Attorney –Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. •D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, Professional Planner –Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. •Yury Bykau, E.I, Traffic Engineer –TR Transportation Consultants, Inc. •Bruce Layman, Ecologist –Peninsula Engineering •Russ Weyer, President –Real Estate Econometrics, Inc. 2 Project Team 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: NIM Documents (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate 3 Area Location Map SUBJECT PROPERTY GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY SANTA BARBARA BLVD.9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: NIM Documents (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate 4 Location Map 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: NIM Documents (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Existing Future Land Use:Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element,Estates Designation,Mixed Use District,Residential Estates Subdistrict Proposed Future Land Use:Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element,Estates Designation,Commercial District,Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict Current Zoning:E,Estates Proposed Zoning:3001 SB Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) Project Acreage:6.4+/-acres 5 Project Information 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: NIM Documents (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate •Small-Scale amendment to the Future Land Use Element to create a new subdistrict in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan,Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element to allow up to 21,500 square feet of general commercial uses in the subdistrict •Rezone the 6.4+/-acre parcel from the E,Estates Zoning District to the 3001 SB Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD)Zoning District to construct a maximum of 21,500 square feet of commercial land uses. 6 Proposed Request 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: NIM Documents (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate 7 Proposed Subdistrict Language 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: NIM Documents (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate 8 Proposed Uses A.Principal Uses: 1.All permitted and Conditional Uses permitted in C-1 through C-3 Zoning Districts and including the following C-4 General Commercial use: a.Car Washes (7542) 2.Eating places (5812)with alcohol consumption on premises (COP). 3.Any other principal use,which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses,as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals (“BZA”)or the Hearing Examiner. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: NIM Documents (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate 9 Prohibited Uses Prohibited Uses, as identified with a number from the Standard Industrial Classification Manual (1987): 1.Any use that would be subject to regulation under Ordinance No. 91-83 and any amendment or successor ordinances thereto regulating sexually oriented businesses. 2.7363 –Help Supply Services, only: Labor pools; Manpower pools 3.7389 –Business Services, Not Elsewhere Classified, only: automobile recovery services; automobile repossession service; bondspersons; gas systems, contract conversion from manufactured to natural gas; metal slitting and shearing on a contract or fee basis; repossession service; solvent recovery service on a contract or fee basis. 4.7993 –Coin-Operated Amusement Devices, only: Gambling Establishments primarily operating coin- operated machines; Gambling machines, coin-operated; Slot machines. 5.Homeless shelter 6.Soup kitchens 7.8063 –Psychiatric Hospitals 8.8069 –Specialty Hospitals, Except Psychiatric, only: alcoholism rehabilitation hospitals; drug addiction rehabilitation hospitals; rehabilitation hospitals drug addiction and alcoholism; tuberculosis and other respiratory illness hospitals. 9.8322 –Individual and Family Social Services, only: alcoholism counseling, nonresidential; crisis center; crisis intervention centers; hotlines; offender rehabilitation agencies; offender self-help agencies; outreach programs; parole offices; probation offices; public welfare centers; referral services for personal and social problems; refugee services; self-help organizations for alcoholic and gamblers; settlement houses. 10.8399 –Social Services, Not Elsewhere Classified, only Social service information exchanges: e.g., alcoholism, drug addiction. 11.9223 –Correctional Institutions. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: NIM Documents (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate 10 Proposed Master Plan Note #2: If a facility with fuel pumps is proposed, landscape buffers for the facility with fuel pumps will be consistent with LDC 5.05.05 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: NIM Documents (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate 11 Proposed Master Plan Overlay Note #2: If a facility with fuel pumps is proposed, landscape buffers for the facility with fuel pumps will be consistent with LDC 5.05.05 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: NIM Documents (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate 12 Proposed Development Standards 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: NIM Documents (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Deviation 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.05.05.C.4.b.,“Signage for Facilities with Fuel Pumps- Canopy Sign Area”,which limits the maximum sign area for the canopy to one twelve (12) square foot corporate logo to instead allow one fifty (50)square foot corporate logo on the north canopy front façade facing Golden Gate Parkway and two thirty (30)square foot corporate logo signs on the side facades facing east to Santa Barbara Boulevard and west facing the adjacent commercial parcel,if convenience store with fuel pumps is developed on the easternmost tract within the PUD. Deviation 2 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.05.05.C.4.b.,“Signage for Facilities with Fuel Pumps- Canopy Sign Location”,which only allows canopy signs on the canopy face that is adjacent to a right-of-way to instead allow a canopy sign on the west side of the fuel canopy not adjacent to a right-of-way in addition to the permitted canopy signs,if a convenience store with fuel pumps is developed on the easternmost tract within the PUD. Deviation 3 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.05.05.B.1.,“Signage for Facilities with Fuel Pumps-Site Design Requirements”,which establishes the minimum side and rear setbacks for all structures as 40 feet to instead allow for the side and rear yard setbacks internal to the PUD boundary to be reduced to 25 feet.This deviation is applicable only to internal parcel boundaries and is not applicable to side and rear yard setbacks measured to the PUD boundary.13 Proposed Deviations (Signage)9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: NIM Documents (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Deviation 4 seeks relief from LDC 4.06.02,Table 2.4,footnote 3,Buffer Requirements,which allows for the required buffer between commercial outparcels to be shared with a total width of 15 feet (7.5 feet on each parcel)to instead allow for shared buffers between commercial outparcels to have a minimum required width of ten feet (five feet on each parcel)provided that the total width of the landscape buffer provided between the proposed development and the west CPUD boundary line is increased to 30 feet. Deviation 5 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.05.D.2.,“Plant Material Standards”,which requires all required new individual trees,shall be species having an average mature spread or crown of greater than 20 feet in the Collier County area and having trunk(s)which can be maintained in a clean condition over five feet of clear wood.Trees adjacent to walkways,bike paths and rights-of-way shall be maintained in a clean condition over eight feet of clear wood.Trees having an average mature spread or crown less than 20 feet may be substituted by grouping the same so as to create the equivalent of 20-foot crown spread.For code-required trees,the trees at the time of installation shall be a minimum of 25 gallon,ten feet in height,have a 1¾- inch caliper (at 12 inches above the ground)and a four-foot spread to instead allow the trees planted within the reduced buffers between outparcels to have less than a 20 foot spread and without the need to provide them in groupings.The balance of trees required in the outparcel buffers will be provided for within the PUD perimeter buffers.14 Proposed Deviations (Landscape)9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: NIM Documents (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate 15 Conclusion Documents and information can be found online: •Gradyminor.com/Planning •Collier County GMD Public Portal: cvportal.colliergov.net/cityviewweb Next Steps •Hearing sign(s) posted on property advertising Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) and Board of County Commissioner (BCC) hearing dates. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: NIM Documents (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate '4 '4 '4 '4 ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_^_ ^_^_^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ PINE RIDGE RD BAYSHORE DRAIRPORT RD NGREEN BLVD G OLDEN GAT E P K W Y COUNTY BARN RDDAVIS BLVD 5THAVES AIRPORT RD SSANTABARBARABLVDLOGANBLVDSRADIO RD COLLIERBLVDGOODLETTE-FRANK RD NTAMIAMITRLE WH ITE BLVD 3835 WHITELAKE BLVD 7392 RADIO RD 6065 PINERIDGE RD 8900 DAVISBLVD 11655COLLIERBLVD 11825COLLIERBLVD 12405COLLIERBLVD 1998 SANTABARBARA BLVD 5100 GOLDENGATE PKWY 3725 PINERIDGE RD 4787 RADIO RD 5680 RADIO RD 1000 WHIPPOORWILL LN 6615 DUDLEY DR 3825TOLLGATEBLVD 8901 DAVISBLVD8485 DAVISBLVD 7387DEVONSHIREBLVD 3827 WHITELAKE BLVD 12481COLLIERBLVD 4704 GOLDENGATE PKWY 1480 AIRPORTPULLING RD N1410 AIRPORTPULLING RD N 6300 DAVISBLVD 8600RADIO LN 7445 DAVISBLVD 1150 AIRPORTPULLING RD N Document Path: M:\GIS_Requests\2021\05-May\GSD-15680 Map of Gas Stations and Stand alone car washes (Eric)\MXD\Gas Stations and Car Washes.mxd I 0 3,250 6,5001,625 Feet Map Date: 5/5/2021 Growth Management DepartmentOperations & RegulatoryManagement Division Parcel 38170040001 Data Source: Planning & Zoning Division *Within 1- mile radius of Parcel#38170040001, there is 1 Gas Station. *Within 2- mile radius of Parcel#38170040001, there are 6 Gas Stations and 2 Car Washes. *Within 3- mile radius of Parcel#38170040001, there are 23 Gas Stations and 4 Car Washes. Legend Parcel 38170040001 1-mile (5,280 Feet) Radius 2-mile (10,560 Feet) Radius 3-mile (15,840 Feet) Radius ^_Gas Stations Car Washes'4 Gas Stations: 1998 Santa Barbara Blvd, Naples, FL 34116 (Parcel ID: 36232080008) 5100 Golden Gate Pkwy, Naples, FL 34116 (Parcel ID: 36442080005) 12405 Collier Blvd, Naples, FL 34116 (Parcel ID: 35832200001) 11825 Collier Blvd, Naples, FL 34116 (Parcel ID: 35779440005) 11655 Collier Blvd, Naples, FL 34116 (Parcel ID: 35640720003 3835 White Lake Blvd , Naples, FL 34117 (Parcel ID: 26095000125) 4787 Radio Rd , Naples, FL 34104 (Parcel ID: 54493000029) 5680 Radio Rd , Naples, FL 34104 (Parcel ID: 62360160000) 7392 Radio Rd, Naples, FL 34104 (Parcel ID: 28530360108 8901 Davis Blvd, Naples, FL 34104 (Parcel ID: 00297440004) 8900 Davis Blvd , Naples, FL 34104 (Parcel ID: 34740160001) 3825 Tollgate Blvd , Naples, FL 34114 (Parcel ID: 76885050351) 6065 Pine Rid ge Rd , Naples, FL 34119 (Parcel ID: 29520002909) 3725 Pine Rid ge Rd , Naples, FL 34109 (Parcel ID: 38454020006) 1000 Whippoorwill Ln, Naples, FL 34105 (Parcel ID: 63000240001) 6615 Dudley Dr, Naples, FL 34105 (Parcel ID: 63000320002) 1480 Airport-Pulling Rd N, Naples, FL 34104 (Parcel ID: 26731200001) 1410 Airport-Pulling Rd N, Naples, FL 34104 (Parcel ID: 00269120006) 1150 Airport-Pulling Rd N, Naples, FL 34104 (Parcel ID: 05575003029) 6300 Davis Blvd, Naples, FL 34104 (Parcel ID: 00402280004) 7445 Davis Blvd, Naples, FL 34104 (Parcel ID: 00400244204) 8485 Davis Blvd, Naples, FL 34104 (Parcel ID: 00399600409) 8600 Radio Ln, Naples, FL 34104 (Parcel ID: 00399600001 Car Washes: 4704 Golden Gate Pkwy, Naples, FL 34116 (Parcel ID: 73248000022) 12481 Collier Blvd, Naples, FL 34116 (Parcel ID: 35832520008) 3827 White Lake Blvd , Naples, FL 34117 (Parcel ID: 26095000167) 7387 Devonshire Blvd, Naples, FL 34104 (Parcel ID: 23941001103) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: Gas Stations and Car Washes (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict GMPA) Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict (PL20200000385) Application and Supporting Documents May 20, 2021 CCPC Hearing 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. Ph. 239-947-1144 Fax. 239-947-0375 3800 Via Del Rey EB 0005151 LB 0005151 LC 26000266 Bonita Springs, FL 34134 www.gradyminor.com April 28, 2020 Mr. Corby Schmidt, AICP Principal Planner Collier County Growth Management Division/ Planning and Regulation Land Development Services Department Comprehensive Planning Section 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 RE: Collier County Growth Management Plan Amendment Application Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict (PL20200000385) Dear Mr. Schmidt: A Collier County Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) application for properties located at the southwest quadrant of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard is being submitted for review. This application proposes to create a new subdistrict in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Element to allow up to 21,500 square feet of general commercial uses in the subdistrict. The proposed amendment reflects the market demand for non-residential development in this location within Golden Gate Estates. The GMPA is supported with a companion PUD rezone, which establishes the specific development standards for the proposed uses, and a Master Plan for development of the 6.4± acre property. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions. Sincerely, D. Wayne Arnold, AICP c: Racetrac Petroleum, Inc. Richard D. Yovanovich GradyMinor File (RTSBGG-20 GMPA Cover Ltr DRAFT.docx) 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 1 APPLICATION NUMBER: PL20200000385 DATE RECEIVED: ______________________________ PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE DATE: March 18, 2020 This application, with all required supplemental data and information, must be completed and accompanied by the appropriate fee, and returned to the Growth Management Department 239-252- 2400, Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104. The application is to be reviewed by staff for sufficiency within 30 calendar days following the filing deadline. The applicant will be notified, in writing, of the sufficiency determination. If insufficient, the applicant will have 30 days to remedy the deficiencies. For additional information on the processing of the application, see Resolution 12-234. If you have any questions, please contact the Comprehensive Planning Section at 239-252-2400. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS I. GENERAL INFOMRATION A. Name of Applicant: Brian Thornton, Vice President Company: RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc. Address: 200 Galleria Parkway, Suite 900 City: Atlanta State: Georgia Zip Code: 30339 Phone Number: 678-552-5390 Fax Number: ________________________________ Email Address: thardy@racetrac.com B. Name of Agent* D. Wayne Arnold, AICP • THIS WILL BE THE PERSON CONTACTED FOR ALL BUSINESS RELATED TO THE PETITION. Company: Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. Address: 3800 Via Del Rey City: Bonita Springs State: Florida Zip Code: 34134 Phone Number: 239-947-1144 Fax Number: ___________________________ Email Address: warnold@gradyminor.com B1. Name of Agent* Richard D. Yovanovich • THIS WILL BE THE PERSON CONTACTED FOR ALL BUSINESS RELATED TO THE PETITION. Company: Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester, P.A. Address: The Northern Trust Building, 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 2 City: Naples State: Florida Zip Code: 34103 Phone Number: 239-435-3535 Fax Number: ___________________________ Email Address: ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com C. Name of Owner (s) of Record: Goodwill Industries of Southwest Florida, Inc. Address: 5100 Tice Street City: Fort Myers State: Florida Zip Code: 33905 Phone Number: 239-666-7690 Fax Number: ______________________________ Email Address: thardy@racetrac.com D. Name, Company, Address and Qualifications of all consultants and other professionals providing information contained in this application, as well as Qualifications of the Agent identified above. See Exhibit I.D. II. Disclosure of Interest Information: A. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, Tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage of such interest. (Use additional sheets if necessary). Name and Address Percentage of Ownership Not Applicable _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ B. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each. Name and Address Percentage of Stock Goodwill Industries of SW FL, Inc. 100% A Florida Not for Profit Corporation _________________________ 5100 Tice Street, Fort Myers, FL 33905 _________________________ C. If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest. Name and Address Percentage of Interest Not Applicable _________________________ _____________________________________ _________________________ 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 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 Percentage of Ownership Not Applicable _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ E. If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers below, including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc. 100% Shareholders % of Shares Carl Bolch, Sr. Trust, dated 9/21/73 50.45% Carl E. Bolch, Jr. Grantor Retained Annuity Trust, dated 12/23/10 18.10% Susan Bass Bolch, Grantor Retained Annuity Trust, dated 12/23/10 18.10% Allison Bolch Moran 2.92% Natalie Bolch Morhous 2.92% Melanie Bolch Isbill 2.92% Jordan Bass Bolch 2.92% Max Lenker 0.57% Robert J. Dumbacher 0.61% Max E. McBrayer, Jr. 0.02% Shirley B. Eggers 0.13% Robby Posener 0.11% Mark A. Reese 0.05% Karla Ahlert 0.06% J. Gilmore 0.02% Kelly Walker Benton 0.03% Whitney Woodward 0.04% Joseph H. Akers 0.03% Brian Thornton 0.08% Arthur J. Siccardi, Jr. 0.05% Bart Stransky 0.02% TOTAL: 100.00% Date of Contract: December 16, 2019 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 (07/2004) leased ( ):________Term of lease: ______yrs./mos. If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate date of option: ______________ and date 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 4 option terminates: ______________, or anticipated closing: _______________________. NOTE: H. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. III. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: A. PARCEL I.D. NUMBER: 38170040001 B. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See Boundary Survey C. GENERAL LOCATION: Southwest quadrant of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Blvd. D. Section: 29 Township: 49 Range: 26 E. PLANNING COMMUNITY: Golden Gate F. TAZ: 256 G. SIZE IN ACRES: 6.4± acres H. ZONING: E, Estates I. FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION(S): Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element, Estates Designation, Mixed Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict J. SURROUNDING LAND USE PATTERN: Residential and Commercial – Exhibit V.A and V.B IV. TYPE OF REQUEST: A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN ELEMENT (S) TO BE AMENDED: ______ Housing Element ______ Recreation/Open Space ______ Traffic Circulation Sub-Element ______ Mass Transit Sub-Element ______ Aviation Sub-Element ______ Potable Water Sub-Element ______ Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element ______ NGWAR Sub-Element ______ Solid Waste Sub-Element ______ Drainage Sub-Element ______ Capital Improvement Element ______ CCME Element ______ Future Land Use Element X Golden Gate Master Plan ______ Immokalee Master Plan B. AMEND PAGE (S): i, 1, 18 AND 19 OF THE: Golden Gate Area Master Plan, Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element AS FOLLOWS: (Use Strike-through to identify language to be deleted; Use Underline to identify language to be added). Attach additional pages if necessary: See Exhibit IV.B 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 5 C. AMEND FUTURE LAND USE MAP(S) DESIGNATION FROM Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element, Estates Designation, Mixed Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict TO Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element, Estates Designation, Commercial District, Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict. Exhibit IV.C D. AMEND OTHER MAP(S) AND EXHIBITS AS FOLLOWS: (Name & Page #)N.A. E. DESCRIBE ADDITIONAL CHANGES REQUESTED: Create Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict Inset Map (page #’s are not shown on existing maps in the Comprehensive Plan). Exhibit IV.E V. REQUIRED INFORMATION: NOTE: ALL AERIALS MUST BE AT A SCALE OF NO SMALLER THAN I”=400’. At least one copy reduced to 8- 1/2 x 11 shall be provided of all aerials and/or maps. A. LAND USE Exhibit V.A Provide general location map showing surrounding developments (PUD, DRI’s, existing zoning) with subject property outlined. Exhibit V.A Provide most recent aerial of site showing subject boundaries, source, and date. Exhibit V.A Provide a map and summary table of existing land use and zoning within a radius of 300 feet from boundaries of subject property. B. FUTURE LAND USE AND DESIGNATION Exhibit V.B Provide map of existing Future Land Use Designation(s) of subject property and adjacent lands, with acreage totals for each land use designation on the subject property. C. ENVIRONMENTAL Exhibit V.C Provide most recent aerial and summary table of acreage of native habitats and soils occurring on site. HABITAT IDENTIFICATION MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE FDOT-FLORIDA LAND USE, COVER AND FORMS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (FLUCCS CODE). NOTE: THIS MAY BE INDICATED ON SAME AERIAL AS THE LAND USE AERIAL IN “A” ABOVE. Exhibit V.C Provide a summary table of Federal (US Fish & Wildlife Service) and State (Florida Game & Freshwater Fish Commission) listed plant and animal species known to occur on the site and/or known to inhabit biological communities similar to the site (e.g. panther or black bear range, avian rookery, bird migratory route, etc.) Identify historic and/or archaeological sites on the subject property. D. GROWTH MANAGEMENT Reference , F.A.C. and Collier County’s Capital Improvements Element Policy 1.1.2 (Copies attached). 1. INSERT “Y” FOR YES OR “N” FOR NO IN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING: N Is the proposed amendment located in an Area of Critical State Concern? (Reference , F.A.C.). IF so, identify area 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 6 located in ACSC. N Is the proposed amendment directly related to a proposed Development of Regional Impact pursuant to Chapter 380 F.S.? (Reference , F.A.C.) Y/N-Exhibit V.D Is the proposed amendment directly related to a proposed Small Scale Development Activity pursuant to Subsection 163.3187 (1)(c), F.S.? Does the proposed amendment create a significant impact in population which is defined as a potential increase in County-wide population by more than 5% of population projections? (Reference Capital Improvement Element Policy 1.1.2). If yes, indicate mitigation measures being proposed in conjunction with the proposed amendment. Y/Y - Exhibit V.D1 Does the proposed land use cause an increase in density and/or intensity to the uses permitted in a specific land use designation and district identified (commercial, industrial, etc.) or is the proposed land use a new land use designation or district? (Reference F.A.C.). If so, provide data and analysis to support the suitability of land for the proposed use, and of environmentally sensitive land, ground water and natural resources. (Reference , F.A.C.) E. PUBLIC FACILITIES 1. Provide the existing Level of Service Standard (LOS) and document the impact the proposed change will have on the following public facilities: Exhibit V.E Potable Water Exhibit V.E Sanitary Sewer Exhibit V.E1 Arterial & Collector Roads; Name specific road and LOS Santa Barbara Boulevard Golden Gate Parkway Exhibit V.E Drainage Exhibit V.E Solid Waste Exhibit V.E Parks: Community and Regional If the proposed amendment involves an increase in residential density, or an increase in intensity for commercial and/or industrial development that would cause the LOS for public facilities to fall below the adopted LOS, indicate mitigation measures being proposed in conjunction with the proposed amendment. (Reference Capital Improvement Element Objective 1 and Policies) 2. Exhibit V.E2 Provide a map showing the location of existing services and public facilities that will serve the subject property (i.e. water, sewer, fire protection, police protection, schools and emergency medical services. 3. Exhibit V.E Document proposed services and public facilities, identify provider, and describe the effect the proposed change will have on schools, fire protection and emergency medical services. 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 7 F. OTHER Identify the following areas relating to the subject property: Exhibit V.F Flood zone based on Flood Insurance Rate Map data (FIRM). N.A. Location of wellfields and cones of influence, if applicable. (Identified on Collier County Zoning Maps) N.A. Coastal High Hazard Area, if applicable N.A. High Noise Contours (65 LDN or higher) surrounding the Naples Airport, if applicable (identified on Collier County Zoning Maps). G. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION N.A $16,700.00 non-refundable filing fee made payable to the Board of County Commissioners due at time of submittal. (Plus, proportionate share of advertising costs) Provided $9,000.00 non-refundable filing fee for a Small-Scale Amendment made payable to the Board of County Commissioners due at time of submittal. (Plus, proportionate share of advertising costs) Exhibit V.G3 Proof of ownership (copy of deed) Exhibit V.G4 Notarized Letter of Authorization if Agent is not the Owner (See attached form) Exhibit V.G5 Addressing Checklist Exhibit V.G6 Preapplication Meeting Notes * If you have held a pre-application meeting within 9 months prior to submitted date and paid the pre-application fee of $500.00 at the meeting, deduct that amount from the above application fee amount when submitting your application. All pre-application fees are included in the total application submittal fee if petition submitted within 9 months of pre-application meeting date. Otherwise the overage will be applied to future proportionate share advertising costs. * Maps shall include: North arrow, name and location of principal roadways and shall be at a scale of 1”=400’ or at a scale as determined during the pre-application meeting. *All attachments should be consistently referenced as attachments or exhibits, and should be labelled to correlate to the application form, e.g. “Exhibit I.D.” * Planning Community, TAZ map, Traffic Analysis Zone map, Zoning maps, and Future Land Use Maps. Some maps are available on the Zoning Division website depicting information herein: Zoning Services Section: _________________ Comprehensive Planning Section: _______________________ THIS HAS CHANGED SINCE DCA BECAME DEO. SEE GMP PAEG 2011 UPDATES: https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/your-government/divisions-s-z/zoning-division/zoning-services- section/land-use-commission-district-maps 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 8 See Exhibit V.G4 LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN I hereby authorize ________________________________________________________________________ (Name of Agent) to serve as my Agent in a request to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan affecting property identified in this Application. Signed: ________________________________________ Date: _________________________ (Name of Owner(s) of Record) I hereby certify that I have the authority to make the foregoing application, and that the application is true, correct and complete to the best of my knowledge. ____________________________________________ Signature of Applicant ___________________________________________ Name - Typed or Printed STATE OF ( ) COUNTY OF ( ) Sworn to and subscribed before me this ____________day of _____________________, 2020 By: ________________________________ MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: Notary Public CHOOSE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING: _____ who is personally known to me, ______ who has produced _____________________________as identification and ______ did take an Oath ______ did not take and Oath NOTICE - BE AWARE THAT: Florida Statute Section 837.06 - False Official Law states that: “Whoever knowingly makes a false statement in writing with the intent to mislead a public servant in the performance of his official duty shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided by a fine to a maximum of %500.00 and/or maximum of a sixty day jail term.” 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict (PL20200000385) Exhibit I.D Professional Consultants August 4, 2020 Page 1 of 1 RTSBGG-20 Exhibit ID-r1.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com Planning/Project Management: D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, FL 34134 239.947.1144 239.947.0375 fax warnold@gradyminor.com Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester, P.A. 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 239.435.3535 239.435.1218 fax ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com Transportation: James M. Banks, P.E., President JMB Transportation Engineering, Inc. 4711 7th Avenue SW Naples, FL 34119 239.919.2767 jmbswte@msn.com Environmental: Bruce Layman, P.E., Ecologist Peninsula Engineering 2600 Golden Gate Parkway Naples, FL 34105 239.262.2600 blayman@barroncollier.com Market Analysis: Russ Weyer President Real Estate Econometrics, Inc. 707 Orchid Drive, Suite 100 Naples, FL 34102 239-269-1341 Rweyer@ree-i.com 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Principal, Director of Planning Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. Civil Engineers  Surveyors  Land Planners  Landscape Architects Education  Master of Urban Planning, University of Kansas, Lawrence  Bachelor of Science, Urban and Regional Planning/Geography, Missouri State University Professional Registrations/ Affiliations  American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP)  American Planning Association (APA)  Urban Land Institute, S.W. Florida Chapter, Board of Directors 1996  Collier County Rural Fringe Committee, Chairman, 1999  Collier County Streetscape Ad hoc Committee, 1999  Leadership Collier, Class of 2000  Bonita Springs Chamber of Commerce Government Affairs Committee  Collier Building Industry Association, Board of Directors  Collier County Jr. Deputy League, Inc., Board of Directors Mr. Arnold is a Principal and co-owner of the firm and serves as the Secretary/Treasurer and Director of Planning. As Director of Planning, Mr. Arnold is responsible for and oversees services related to plan amendments, property rezonings, expert witness testimony, ROW Acquisition, public participation facilitation, and project management. Mr. Arnold previously served as the Planning Services Director at Collier County, where he oversaw the County’s zoning, comprehensive planning, engineering, platting and Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) functions. Mr. Arnold also has prior Florida planning experience with Palm Beach County Government and the South Florida Water Management District. Mr. Arnold has been accepted as an expert in land planning matters in local and state proceedings. Relevant Projects  Collier County Growth Management Plan  Marco Island Master Plan  Immokalee Area Master Plan  Collier County Land Development Code  Logan Boulevard Right-of-Way Acquisition Planning Analysis  U.S. 41 Right-of-Way Expansion Planning Analysis  Copeland Zoning Overlay  Collier County Government Center Development of Regional Impact (DRI)  Winding Cypress DRI  Pine Ridge/Goodlette Road Commercial Infill District  Lely Lakes PUD Rezoning  Henderson Creek Planned Development/Growth Management Plan Amendment  Orangetree (Settlement Area) Growth Management Plan Amendment  Mercato Mixed Use Planned Development  North Point DRI/MPD  Vornado RPUD  Orange Blossom Ranch MPD  Palermo Cove RPD 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Richard D. Yovanovich ______________________________ Rich Yovanovich is one of the firm’s shareholders. He moved to Naples in 1990 and was an Assistant County Attorney for Collier County from 1990-1994. As an Assistant County Attorney he focused on land development and construction matters. Since entering private practice in 1994, Mr. Yovanovich has represented property owners through the entitlement process before local and state agencies. His representation includes project ranging from small residential and commercial projects to large developments of regional impact. Professional Activities/Associations The Florida Bar Collier County Bar Association Civic/Charitable Activities/Associations Member, Furman University Trustees Council, 2007 - Chairman, Leadership Collier Foundation Alumni Assoc. Member, Board of Directors, Holocaust Museum 2007 – Member, Leadership Collier, Class of 2000 Member, Board of Directors, CBIA (Director 2004-2008, Vice President 2006-2007) Member, Board of Director, Immokalee Friendship House Member, Board of Director, Avow Hospice 2011- Member, Florida Trend Legal Elite Elder, Vanderbilt Presbyterian Church Bar & Court Admission Florida, 1988 U.S District Court, Middle District of Florida U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit Education University of South Carolina J.D., 1987 J. Ed., 1986 Furman University B.A., cum laude, 1983 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial JMB Transportation Engineering, Inc. Key Personnel - James M. Banks, P.E., President JAMES M. BANKS, P.E., PRESIDENT Certifications & Positions Bachelor of Science Degree in Civil Engineering - University of Kentucky, 1986 Professional Engineer - State of Florida – Reg. No. 43860, 1991 to Present JMB Transportation Engineering, Inc., President/Owner – 2007 to Present Q & E Overview Mr. Banks has been actively involved in the fields of traffic/transportation engineering and planning since 1987. During the past 30 years, he has developed a comprehensive knowledge within these disciplines and is regarded as an expert within his profession. Mr. Banks has represented a wide range of clientele in both the public and private sectors. Public sector clients include airport authorities & FAA, local and state municipalities, county commissions, public school boards, city councils, planning boards, and city/county attorneys. Private sector clients have been land planners, land use attorneys, right-of-way acquisition attorneys, engineers, surveyors, architects and developers. Corridor Planning Mr. Banks has conducted a significant number of roadway corridor studies for both the public and private sectors. His work efforts included developing a comprehensive and strategic corridor improvement plan to meet the long term transportation objectives for the area. By forecasting area- wide long range traffic demands, Mr. Banks developed transportation needs plans in order to ensure adequate roadway capacity. Example projects are Alico Road Six-Laning, Lee Boulevard Improvements, Southwest International Airport’s Transportation Needs Plan, Bonita Beach Road Access Management Plan, and Fort Myers Beach - Time Square Traffic Circulation Study. Transportation Design Mr. Banks has been engineer of record on numerous transportation design projects; such as, complex intersection design, signalization, street lighting, maintenance of traffic plans, signing and pavement marking plans, vehicular accident analysis, major roadway improvement design, traffic calming plans, railroad crossing design, and access management plans. Projects include Colonial Boulevard Improvements, Immokalee Road Widening Project, Lee Boulevard Six-Laning, Bonita Beach Road and Alico Road Widening. Traffic Impact Statements & Site Access Studies Mr. Banks has prepared countless Traffic Impact Statements & Site Access Studies for privately funded, publicly funded and public utilities projects. Types of projects that he has worked on include 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial JMB Transportation Engineering, Inc. Key Personnel - James M. Banks, P.E., President all size of commercial/medical/airport projects and every possible type and size residential and mixed-use developments, including projects that were deemed Developments of Regional Impact (DRI's). Governmental agencies have used reports that were prepared by Mr. Banks as "guidelines" that have been distributed to other professionals for their consideration when producing their work products. Mr. Banks has a earned reputation with the private sector of having the skills necessary to navigate through the permitting process with ease . Expert Witness Mr. Banks has provided expert witness testimony at numerous court proceedings and public hearings regarding traffic/transportation related matters. He has testified in various forums; such as, county commission meetings, hearing examiner reviews, courts of law, public workshops, port authority meetings, and peer review functions. Types of issues that Mr. Banks provided testimony for were right-of-way acquisition cases; zoning and land use amendments, land development projects, corridor studies, roadway improvement projects, transportation improvement projects, and airport construction projects. Selected Project Experience Colonial Boulevard Improvements for Lee County DOT -Engineer of Record/Project Manager for the preparation of at-grade and interchange signalization plans, signing & pavement markings plans, street lighting and complex maintenance of traffic plans. Also, provided right-of-way acquisition services to the Lee County Attorney's office. SWFIA Expansion/Treeline Avenue Extension for FAA & Lee County Government - Engineer of Record for the Transportation Demand/Needs Study that was used as the basis for the ultimate design and construction. Prepared signalization plans and intersection geometry plans for complex intersections. Immokalee Road Improvements for Collier County DOT - Engineer of Record/Project Manager for the preparation of signalization, signing & pavement markings, street lighting plans. Alico Road Six Laning - Engineer of Record for the Corridor Study that was used as the basis for the ultimate design and construction. Prepared signalization plans, maintenance of traffic plans, railroad crossing, provided peer review/QC for road design plans. Lee Boulevard - Engineer of Record for the Corridor Study & Access Management Plan that was used as the basis for the ultimate design and construction. Prepared signalization plans, maintenance of traffic plans, and provided peer review/QC. State Road 80 - FDOT - Design Engineer for the widening and drainage improvements of S.R. 80 from I-75 to Buckingham Road, in Lee County. 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Bruce C. Layman CE, PWS Ecologist * denotes projects completed with other firms One Team. Infinite Solutions. Mr. Layman’s experience includes over 28 years of executing or managing projects that involve listed species and jurisdictional wetlands; developing wetland and listed species mitigation plans; mapping and post-permitting monitoring of environmental resources; and supporting environmental permits for wetlands and listed wildlife for both private and municipal land development projects in Florida and the Caribbean. EDUCATION Bachelor of Science, Zoology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1988 Master of Arts, Marine Science, The College of William and Mary, School of Marine Sciences, Williamsburg, Virginia, 1992 Expert Witness, Wildlife and Listed Species Surveys, Florida, 1997 REGISTRATIONS Certified Ecologist, Ecological Society of America Professional Wetland Scientist, Society of Wetland Scientists Certification Program Registered Burrowing Owl Agent #RAG-12-00034C Authorized Gopher Tortoise Agent #GTA-12-00034C MEMBERSHIPS Member, Ecological Society of America Member, Society of Wetland Scientists SELECT PROJECT EXPERIENCE Madison Park Residential Community, Collier County, Florida (Lead Ecologist)* Responsible for executing state and federal wetland permitting and species-specific permitting involving red-cockaded woodpeckers (RCWs) and gopher tortoises on a 262-acre single family and multi-family residential development. RCW permitting required functional assessment of habitat quality, trust fund payment, on-site start-hole creation, and colony monitoring. Gopher tortoise permitting required population studies on both donor and recipient sites; upper respiratory tract disease testing; and off-site relocation of tortoises to the Lee County-owned Bowditch Point Regional Park. Ave Maria University, Collier County, Florida (Lead Ecologist)* Responsible for designing two on-site preserve areas totaling 73 acres, including grading plans to create open water, emergent marsh, hydric forest, and forested upland habitats. A raised timber walkway was included to promote environmental awareness. Supported state and federal wetland permitting and four years of annual preserve monitoring per the resulting environmental permits. Additionally responsible for orchestrating species-specific field surveys on 5,000-acre property for the sandhill crane, burrowing owl, southeastern American kestrel and Audubon’s crested caracara, in addition to general species surveys to Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission standards. Immokalee Road Wildlife Crossing Design-Build, Collier County, Florida (Lead Ecologist)* Collier County Department of Transportation received a grant to design, permit, and build a 5’x10’ wildlife crossing under Immokalee Road adjacent to Camp Keais Strand in the rural lands of Collier County. With environmental permits in hand, served as principle ecologist to conduct pre-work wildlife surveys to clear the construction corridor, and to provide technical assistance during construction to maintain compliance with permit requirements. 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Curriculum Vitae George Russell Weyer President Real Estate Econometrics, Inc. 707 Orchid Drive Naples, FL 34102 (239) 269-1341 rweyer@ree-i.com Overview  Over 20 years of real estate development experience in Florida, Ohio and Nevada with large corporations and family-owned companies that focused on commercial office, retail, industrial, hospitality, amenity and large scale community and residential development.  Senior management experience with the entire development process from acquisition identification, due diligence, purchase negotiations, financing, planning and securing entitlements, horizontal and vertical construction, sales/leasing and marketing, to property management and condominium turnover and disposition. Skills also include land acquisition, land planning, entitlement process, financing proforma development, market analysis, land development, CDD management, financing and assessment determination, home and commercial construction, sales and Marketing management, builder selection and management, amenity design and management, residential and commercial property owners association management and design review committee management .  Experience with governmental entities on budgeting, financing and identifying and implementing economic development programs.  Full member of the Urban land Institute and the past chairman of ULI’s Southwest Florida District Council. Expert Testimony  Mr. Weyer has testified as an expert in front of the following courts of law: o In the Circuit Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit in and for Sumpter County, FL o Florida Department of Administrative Hearings o In the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit Court in and for Collier County, FL o in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit Court in and for Lee County, FL o United States Bankruptcy Court, Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division o United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial  Mr. Weyer has testified as an expert in front of the following governmental jurisdictions: o City of Naples, Florida o Collier County, Florida o City of Bonita Springs, Florida o Hillsborough County, Florida o Lee County, Florida o City of Fort Myers, Florida o City of Cape Coral, Florida o City of North Port, Florida o City of Tamarac, Florida o Miami-Dade County, Florida o Community Redevelopment Agency, Fort Myers, Florida o Community Redevelopment Advisory Board, Naples, Florida  Mr. Weyer has testified as an expert for following bond validation hearings: o Ave Maria Stewardship Community District o Fronterra Community Development District o Hacienda Lakes Community Development District o Cypress Shadows Community Development District Professional Experience  President, Real Estate Econometrics, Inc., Naples, FL 2014-Present Real Estate Econometrics, Inc., a full-service consulting firm specializing in financial, economic and fiscal analysis and implementation for real estate projects, is well-versed in all aspects of the real estate/land development process from determining the market and land acquisition through planning and development and finally marketing and land disposition. Performing real estate valuation analysis, entitlement analysis (commercial need, affordable housing, fiscal impact), CDD formation and management, CDD methodology consultant, commercial POA management, fiscal impact analysis of real estate projects, large scale development market analysis, economic impact analysis, government assessment methodology development, litigation support analysis, public/private partnership coordination, tax increment financing.  Senior Associate, Fishkind & Associates, Inc., Naples, FL 2004-2014 Real estate valuation analysis, entitlement analysis (commercial need, affordable housing, fiscal impact), CDD formation and management, CDD methodology consultant, commercial POA management, fiscal impact analysis of real estate projects, large scale development market analysis, economic impact analysis, government assessment methodology development, litigation support analysis, Cape Canaveral economic and fiscal impact, annexation analysis, impact fee analysis, public/private partnership coordination, tax increment financing. 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial  V.P. Development, JED of Southwest Florida, Inc. Naples, FL 2003-2004 Office complex design, construction and management, neighborhood retail complex design, construction and management, entitlement process management.  President, GRW Management, Inc., Naples, FL 2001-2003 Market and entitlement analysis  President, London Bay Homes, Inc. subsidiary, Romanza, Inc. Naples, FL 2000-2001 Managed two offices of an interior design company. Turn around into profitable entity.  V.P. Resort Operations, Lake Las Vegas Joint Venture, Las Vegas NV 1999-2000 Managed all commercial operations on site – 2 hotels, small retail center, two casinos, private community club, lake/marina operations, managed public and private golf course operations, designed and constructed third public golf course and clubhouse, community liaison for development company, design review committee chair, property owners association chair.  President & CEO, Cavalear Corporation, Toledo, OH 1997-1999 Management of 3 master planned communities – one with lake and two with golf courses, development and construction management of 2 residential villa neighborhoods, unit construction for two villa developments, single family unit construction  Director of Commercial Sales, Amenity Management & Marketing, Westinghouse Communities, Inc. Naples/Fort Myers, FL 1983-1997 Amenity manager, managed public and private golf courses, builder program manager, builder sales manager, model row development, marketing manager for two large scale master planned communities – Pelican Bay and Gateway, started and managed Pelican Landing and Pelican Marsh marketing departments. Education University of Miami, Miami, FL MBA 1993 Michigan State University, Bachelor of Arts, Communications, 1977 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.gPacket Pg. 238Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict GMPA) Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict (PL20200000385) Exhibit IV.C Proposed Future Land Use Map SUBJECT PROPERTY 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial GradyMinor Civil Engineers ●Land Surveyors ●Planners ●Landscape Architects Cert. of Auth. EB 0005151 Cert. of Auth. LB 0005151 Business LC 26000266 Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, Florida 34134 Bonita Springs: 239.947.1144 ZZZ.GradyMinor.coP Fort Myers: 239.690.4380 0 300'150' SCALE: 1" = 300' WHEN PLOTTED @ 8.5" X 11" 300 FOOT RADIUS ZONED: E USE: CHARTER SCHOOL GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY ZONED: E USE: RESIDENTIAL SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARDZONED: E AND COLONADES AT SANTA BARBARA CPUD (CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT OVERLAY) USE: RESIDENTIAL AND UNDEVELOPED ZONED: PARKWAY CENTER PUD (GGPPOCO OVERLAY) USE: UNDEVELOPED SUBJECT PROPERTY - 6.4± ACRES EXISTING ZONING:E, ESTATES (CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT OVERLAY) EXISTING FLUE:URBAN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES SUB-ELEMENT, ESTATES DESIGNATION, MIXED USE DISTRICT, RESIDENTIAL ESTATES SUBDISTRICT EXISTING USE:CHURCH ADJACENT PROPERTY PROPERTY ZONING LAND USE NORTH E, PUD (CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT OVERLAY)ROW, RESIDENTIAL, UNDEVELOPED EAST RMF-12, PUD (GGPPOCO)ROW, RESIDENTIAL, UNDEVELOPED SOUTH E RESIDENTIAL, CHARTER SCHOOL WEST E RESIDENTIAL ZONED: RMF-12 USE: RESIDENTIAL ZONED: E USE: RESIDENTIAL SUBJECT PROPERTY 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- EXHIBIT V.B. EXISTING URBAN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES FUTURE LAND USE MAP SITE ESTATES DESIGNATION, MIXED USE DISTRICT, RESIDENTIAL ESTATES SUBDISTRICT = 6.4± ACRES 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 3001 SB CPUD LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA PREPARED BY: PENINSULA ENGINEERING 2600 GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY NAPLES, FL 34105 DECEMBER 2018 UPDATED APRIL 2020 UPDATED JUNE 2020 _ BRUCE LAYMAN, CE, PWS Exhibit V.CEnvironmental 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 3001 SB CPUD LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA UPDATE 2 P:\Active_Projects\P-RACE-003\001_SB3001 RaceTrac Co. RAI\Submittals\County TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 3 2. PROJECT METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................... 3 2.1. Listed Wildlife Survey .................................................................................................................... 3 2.2. Listed Plant Survey ........................................................................................................................ 4 2.3. Habitat Mapping ........................................................................................................................... 4 3. SURVEY RESULTS ................................................................................................................................... 5 3.1. Listed Wildlife Species Observed/Identified on Site ..................................................................... 5 3.2. Listed Wildlife Species Not Observed but With Potential to Occur on Site ................................ 5 3.3. Listed Plant Species Observed on Site ........................................................................................... 6 3.4. Habitat Mapping ........................................................................................................................... 6 4. SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................. 7 5. REFERENCES CITED ................................................................................................................................ 7 TABLES Table 1 - Non-Listed Wildlife Species Observed ........................................................................................... 9 Table 2 - Estimated Probability of Occurrence of Non-Observed Listed Faunal Species ............................ 9 APPENDICES Appendix A - Existing Vegetation Association & Land Use Descriptions FIGURES Figure 1 – FLUCCS, Listed Species, & Transect Exhibit Figure 2 - Nuisance Bear in Feed, Feeder, Garbage Location Map 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 3001 SB CPUD LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA UPDATE 3 P:\Active_Projects\P-RACE-003\001_SB3001 RaceTrac Co. RAI\Submittals\County 1. INTRODUCTION In order to support local and state environmental permitting, Peninsula Engineering (PE) initiated listed species assessment services associated with a 6.40-acre parcel known as 3001 Santa Barbara. The Project Site is located in Section 29; Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. Goodwill Industries of Southwest Florida, Inc. facilities are located on the parcel. The Project is bordered on the north by Golden Gate Parkway, on the east by Santa Barbara Boulevard, on the south by Naples Christian Academy, and on the west by residential development. Approximately 70% of the 6.40 acres exists as buildings/parking and mowed landscape. 2. PROJECT METHODOLOGY Bruce Layman, Ecologist with PE, conducted a listed species survey on the Project site on March 30, 2018, and again on April 1, 2020. His credentials to conduct the survey and generate the Environmental Data include receiving a B.S. in Zoology from Michigan State University and a M.S. in Marine Science from the Virginia Institute of Marine Science; followed by managing projects that involve listed species and jurisdictional wetlands, developing wetland and listed species mitigation plans, mapping and post- permitting monitoring of environmental resources, and supporting environmental permits for wetlands and listed wildlife for private and public clients in S.W. Florida since 1992. The following narrative describes the methodologies used in habitat mapping and conducting the listed species survey. 2.1. Listed Wildlife Survey Prior to conducting the listed species survey, color aerial imagery was reviewed to anticipate which habitats may be present. Based on the habitat types identified, a conceptual list of state and federal listed flora and fauna that could occur on the project site was generated. Various publications and databases were also reviewed to identify listed plant and wildlife species that are regionally present and that could occur in those habitat types. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s (FWC) Florida’s Endangered and Threatened Species (FWC, 2016) was used to determine the “listed” state and federal status designation of wildlife species. The FWC Wildlife Occurrence data base (WildObs) was queried to identify documented listed plant and wildlife occurrences within a 5-mile radius of the project site. The FWC data base, updated July 2017, showed the nearest listed species occurrence record to be for the least tern (Sterna albifrons) - approximately 1.4 miles from the Project Site. The red-cockaded woodpecker - RCW (Picoides borealis) had two observation points: one historic point in proximity to the intersection of David Boulevard and Radio Road (approximately 2 miles southeast of the Project site) and one associated with recent RCW activity near the Collier County Landfill (approximately 3.5 miles east of the Project site). No gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) observation points were shown within the 5-mile project radius; however, it was known from personal experience that tortoises exist in the project vicinity. The project site contained no U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) designated listed species critical habitat. 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 3001 SB CPUD LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA UPDATE 4 P:\Active_Projects\P-RACE-003\001_SB3001 RaceTrac Co. RAI\Submittals\County The field survey consisted of one ecologist performing meandering pedestrian transects spaced approximately 50 to 200 feet on center based on habitat type and visibility limits. The approximate locations of transects performed during each listed species survey are indicated on Figure 1 entitled FLUCCS, Listed Species, & Transect Exhibit. Given the nature of the parcel, the ecologist is anticipated to have visually observed approximately 100% of the improved, mowed and landscaped grounds and over 80% of the remainder of the parcel. Transects were conducted between 8:00 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. on March 18, 2018 and between 11:30 and 12:30 on April 1, 2020. Weather conditions were as follows: temperature 65 F, wind 0 mph, clear skies, no precipitation; and 76 F, wind 0 mph, clear skies, no precipitation, respectively. The field observer was equipped with a compass, GPS, aerials, wildlife and plant identification books, binoculars, and a field notebook. During pedestrian transects, the ecologist periodically stopped, looked for wildlife, signs of wildlife, and listened for wildlife vocalizations. Based on the habitats present on the parcel (not to the exclusion of other listed species), the ecologist specifically surveyed for the potential presence of the Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi), gopher tortoise, Big Cypress fox squirrel (Sciurus niger avicennia), and trees containing cavities that could potentially be used for roosting by the Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus). 2.2. Listed Plant Survey During the course of conducting surveys for listed wildlife species, the PE ecologist searched for plants listed by the Florida Department of Agriculture (FDA) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). These agencies have categorized the various plant species based upon their relative abundance in natural communities. Those categorizations include “Endangered”, “Threatened” and “Commercially Exploited”. The protection afforded plants listed by FDA entails restrictions on harvesting or destroying plants found on private lands of another, or public lands, without permission and/or a permit from FDA. There are no restrictions for landowners, unless the sale of plants is involved. These provisions are found in Section 581.185, FDA under State law. 2.3. Habitat Mapping The habitat survey included the preparation of a Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS) map delineating the major vegetation communities, landforms, and land uses present on the project site. A FLUCCS Map for the project site is provided as Figure 1 entitled FLUCCS, Listed Species, & Transect Exhibit. The methods and class descriptions found in the FLUCCS manual (FDOT, 1999) were followed when delineating and assigning areas to an appropriate FLUCCS category (class) or “codes”. Plant communities were mapped using direct field observations and aerial photo interpretation. Color aerial photos were plotted at 1” = 60’ scale and were used in the field to map the vegetative communities on the site. 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 3001 SB CPUD LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA UPDATE 5 P:\Active_Projects\P-RACE-003\001_SB3001 RaceTrac Co. RAI\Submittals\County A factor in mapping vegetative associations and local habitats is the invasion by the exotic plant species, such as melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia), Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius), and earleaf acacia (Acacia auriculiformis). Four levels of exotic density are typically recognized. Code modifiers may be appended to the base FLUCCS code to indicate the approximate density of exotic vegetation in the canopy or understory, as follows: E1 = Exotics 10-24% E2 = Exotics 25-49% E3 = Exotics 50-75% E4 = Exotics 75<% The Collier County LDC identifies nine (9) wellfields located within county limits that require special protection. Their locations and protection zones are illustrated in Collier County LDC section 3.06.06. Projects that are located within any of the wellfields, or their protection zones, are required to abide by requirements described in LDC section 3.06.00 – Groundwater Protection. 3. SURVEY RESULTS 3.1. Listed Wildlife Species Observed/Identified on Site No listed wildlife species were observed on site during the listed species survey. Non-listed wildlife species were noted during the surveys and they are listed in Table 1. 3.2. Listed Wildlife Species Not Observed but With Potential to Occur on Site The following is a discussion of listed wildlife species that were not confirmed during the survey as occurring on the project site but were considered to have the potential to occur due to the presence of suitable habitat, or recent confirmed sightings in the region. These species are included in Table 2. The Big Cypress fox squirrel (BCFS): The BCFS distribution is believed to be limited to an area south of the Caloosahatchee River and west to the Everglades. The BCFS is usually associated with FLUCCS codes 411, 621, and 624. The BCFS could potentially inhabit the landscaped areas and forest edge associated with the Goodwill Industries facility grounds; however, no evidence of the BCFS (e.g., direct sightings, nests, or day beds) was observed on site during either survey. The Florida bonneted bat: The Project Site falls within the FWS consultation area for this species. There is relatively little known about the life-history needs of the species. However, it has been suggested in the literature that roosts may be a limiting resource for this bat. No trees with cavities that could serve as potential roost sites for the bonneted bat were identified during the 2018 listed species survey. However, since that time, approximately seven (7) slash pine trees have died on the property ranging in size from 6” to 16” DBH. Two of the snags contained small, unenlarged woodpecker cavities, and cavities in one of the two trees was observed to be occupied by the common starling. No large or mature living trees with deformities, such as large cavities, hollows, broken tops, loose bark, and other evidence of decay, were observed on site. Based upon the lack of living trees with potential to support maternal roosting by bonneted bats, 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 3001 SB CPUD LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA UPDATE 6 P:\Active_Projects\P-RACE-003\001_SB3001 RaceTrac Co. RAI\Submittals\County and since the two observed snags containing cavities that were either judged to be of insufficient size to support such roosting or were already occupied by other species, it is not reasonable to anticipate that roosting by the bonneted bat occurs on site. The survey method employed was not designed to determine regional species presence or absence. Therefore, given that this species ranges widely to forage, there remains the potential for the species to commute or forage over the parcel. Per the FWS October 2019 guidance, since the foraging habitat on site is less than 50 acres in size, loss of the little natural area that exists on site is not expected to significantly impair the ability of individual bonneted bats to feed and breed and is, therefore, not likely to adversely affect the species. Eastern indigo snake: Eastern indigo snakes inhabit pine forests, hardwood hammocks, scrub and other uplands. They also rely heavily on a variety of wetland habitats for feeding and temperature regulation needs. It is typically assumed by the FWS that there is potential for the species to be present on nearly any site in Southwest Florida. However, with low on-site upland habitat quality, it is unlikely that the indigo snake would occur on site. Though no longer listed, the Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) has the potential to roam the region. As such, consideration was given as to whether the proposed project was at risk of bears being attracted to refuse generated by the project and whether additional steps were warranted to minimize the potential for bears to raid dumpster(s) on site. Generally, the project is located on the western fringe of Golden Gate City, a very urbanizes center where bears would not be anticipated to frequent. This was confirmed in the lack of records of bears raiding outdoor feed and trash cans in the region surrounding the project (as obtained from the FWC data base) – i.e., the project is not located in any of the nuisance bear hot spots shown on attached Figure 2. Lastly, the nature of RaceTrac facilities is that they are busy with human activity being open for business 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, they are well lit at night, and the refuse is kept in dumpsters in gated enclosures – making bear attraction or access to them sufficiently improbable. As such, it is not believed that additional actions or mechanisms are necessary to further minimize the near zero potential for bear attraction to the property. 3.3. Listed Plant Species Observed on Site No listed plants were observed on site during the listed species survey. 3.4. Habitat Mapping Natural and semi-natural areas of the Project site are comprised primarily of pine flatwoods (all lacking saw palmetto - some being mowed and some being un-maintained). The unmaintained flatwoods have various degrees of exotic vegetation (predominantly ear-leaf acacia and Brazilian pepper). High winds associated with Hurricane Irma in 2017 snapped trees off, pushed them over, and significantly tangled the existing canopy and midstory vegetation. The remainder of the site is mowed landscape, fenced playground area, and facility hardscape. Per the Collier County Property Appraiser web site, the property was issued four permits to make improvements to the parcel (permit # 83-121 and 83-1568 in 1983 for church and parking, 85-932 in 1985 for a picnic shelter, and 93-12642 in 1994 for a mobile home and deck). Site clearing and subsequent landscape maintenance was conducted in association with those permits. 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 3001 SB CPUD LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA UPDATE 7 P:\Active_Projects\P-RACE-003\001_SB3001 RaceTrac Co. RAI\Submittals\County This assessment anticipates that there are no state or federal jurisdictional wetlands or surface waters on site. This will be verified by the appropriate regulatory agencies during permit review. The project is not located within any of the nine County wellfields, or their protection zones, described in Collier County LDC section 3.06.06. A detailed description of each FLUCCS code is provided in Appendix A. Figure 1 provides a map showing the vegetative associations found on the parcel. Of the 6.40-acre site, 1.42 acres of it are considered native habitat per Collier County definition. Per the native vegetation preservation requirement, 15% (0.21 acres) of the existing native vegetation would require preservation (1.42 x 15% = 0.21 acres). The Applicant desires to satisfy the native vegetation preservation requirement off site in accordance with LDC Section 3.05.07.H.1.f. 4. SUMMARY Results of the survey reflect that there were no listed flora or fauna observed on site. Though not observed on site, there is potential for the site to be opportunistically used by the Eastern indigo snake, the Big Cypress fox squirrel, and the bonneted bat based upon the habitat present on site - though the potential is near zero given the site’s lack of potential roost locations for the bonneted bat, the relatively intense surrounding development, the site’s dense and tangled midstory and groundcover, and the site being bounded by two arterial roadways. Additionally, this assessment anticipates that there are no state or federal jurisdictional wetlands or surface waters on site, and the project is not located within any of the County’s nine wellfield protect zones. Lastly, the Applicant proposes to satisfy the County’s native vegetation preservation requirement off site in accordance with LDC 3.05.07.H.1.f. 5. REFERENCES CITED Florida Department of Transportation. 1999. Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System. Procedure No. 550-010-001-a. Third Edition. Tallahassee, Florida. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2016. Florida’s Endangered and Threatened Species. Tallahassee, Florida. 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 3001 SB CPUD LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA UPDATE P:\Active_Projects\P-RACE-003\001_SB3001 RaceTrac Co. RAI\Submittals\County TABLES 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 3001 SB CPUD LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA UPDATE 9 P:\Active_Projects\P-RACE-003\001_SB3001 RaceTrac Co. RAI\Submittals\County Table 1: Non-listed Wildlife Species Observed Common Name Scientific Name Birds Blue jay Cyanocitta cristata Red-bellied woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus Common starling Sturnus vulgaris Boat-tailed grackle Quiscalus major Northern cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis Amphibians & Reptiles Green anole Anolis carolinensis Mammals Rabbit Sylvagus spp. Gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensis Table 2 : Estimated Probability of Occurrence of Non-Observed Listed Faunal Species Common Name Scientific Name Status (FWC/FWS) Estimated Occurrence* Habitat by FLUCCS Probable Possible Unlikely Mammals Big Cypress fox squirrel Sciurus niger avicennia T/NL X All Florida bonneted bat Eumops floridanus E/E X All Reptiles Eastern indigo snake Drymarchon corais couperi T/T X All FWC = Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission FWS = United States Fish and Wildlife Service T = Threatened E = Endangered NL = Not listed * Probable Occurrence = >50% estimated chance of occurrence on site. Possible Occurrence = <50% estimated chance of occurrence on site. Unlikely Occurrence = <5% estimated chance of occurrence on site. 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 3001 SB CPUD LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA UPDATE 10 P:\Active_Projects\P-RACE-003\001_SB3001 RaceTrac Co. RAI\Submittals\County APPENDIX A Existing Vegetative Association & Land Use Descriptions 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 3001 SB CPUD LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA UPDATE 11 P:\Active_Projects\P-RACE-003\001_SB3001 RaceTrac Co. RAI\Submittals\County Existing Vegetative Association & Land Use Detailed Descriptions Commercial and Services (FLUCCS 140) - This use represents the existing Goodwill Industries of Southwest Florida facility including buildings, parking, outdoor children’s recreation, and landscaped areas. Pine Flatwoods – Gramminoid Understory (FLUCCS 416) – This community is dominated in the canopy by slash pine (Pinus elliottii), cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), earleaf acacia (acacia auriculiformis), and java plum (Syzygium cumini). The midstory may be absent in the maintained landscaped areas or may include Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) and the previously-noted canopy species. Groundcover includes bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), beautyberry (Callicarpa americana), and various ruderal species. Vines are abundant and include muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia), catbriar (Smilax spp.), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). Pine Flatwoods – Gramminoid Understory, Disturbed (FLUCCS 416D) – This community is composed of a sparse canopy of slash pine over mowed lawn. Brazilian Pepper (FLUCCS 422) – This community is dominated in the canopy and/or midstory by Brazilian pepper. Groundcover is largely absent. Exotics 10-24% (Major FLUCCS Code + E1) This FLUCCS code modifier refers to a vegetative community that has been invaded by the exotic species such that they comprise between 10% and 24% of the vegetative cover. Exotics 25-49% (Major FLUCCS Code + E2) This FLUCCS code modifier refers to a vegetative community that has been invaded by exotic species such that they comprise between 25% and 49% of the vegetative cover. Exotics 50-75% (Major FLUCCS Code + E3) This FLUCCS code modifier refers to a vegetative community that has been invaded by exotic species such that they comprise between 50 and 75% of the vegetative cover. Exotics >75% (Major FLUCCS Code + E4) This FLUCCS code modifier refers to a vegetative community that has been invaded by exotic species such that they comprise greater than 75 percent of the vegetative cover, and still retains at least 10% native tree canopy coverage. 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 3001 SB CPUD LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA UPDATE 12 P:\Active_Projects\P-RACE-003\001_SB3001 RaceTrac Co. RAI\Submittals\County FIGURE 1 FLUCCS, Listed Species, & Transect Exhibit 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 3001 SB CPUD LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA UPDATE 13 P:\Active_Projects\P-RACE-003\001_SB3001 RaceTrac Co. RAI\Submittals\County 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 3001 SB CPUD LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA UPDATE 14 P:\Active_Projects\P-RACE-003\001_SB3001 RaceTrac Co. RAI\Submittals\County FIGURE 2 Nuisance Bear in Feed, Feeder, Garbage Location Map 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 3001 SB CPUD LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA UPDATE 15 P:\Active_Projects\P-RACE-003\001_SB3001 RaceTrac Co. RAI\Submittals\County 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict (PL20200000385) Exhibit V.D Growth Management July 22, 2020 Page 1 of 6 RTSBGG-20 Exhibit VD-r1.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com The proposed amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub- Element, which will authorize up to 21,500 square feet of commercial development is appropriate for this location. The 6.4+/- acre property is located at the intersection of two 6- lane arterial roadways. The underlying zoning currently provides for E, Estates residential uses at 1 dwelling unit per 2.25 acres, which is not compatible given the proximity to the 6-lane roadways. The existing church located on the 6.4+/- acres located at the intersection was constructed prior to the adoption of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, and it is not a permitted use under the current master plan. The amendment proposes to create a new commercial sub-district under the Urban Golden Gate Area Master Plan, in order to development retail commercial uses at the intersection of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The commercial uses with C-3 and limited C-4 intensity make sense at this intersection of two 6- lane arterial roadways. The three other quadrants of this intersection are zoned commercial and allow for uses ranging from medical office to C-4, general retail uses. We have also prepared an analysis, which concludes that the commercial use is an appropriate use and supported by data and analysis. The market analysis is prepared by Russ Weyer of Real Estates Econometrics, Inc. is included as an exhibit to this application. The Golden Gate Master Plan Restudy effort did not look at site-specific land uses. The restudy was a very high-level policy analysis of the existing master plan. The GGAMP restudy did not result in changes that would permit commercial land uses at the subject location, although the three other quadrants of the intersection are zoned for commercial uses ranging from medical office to General Commercial uses. The proposed uses are compatible with the surrounding area. There are hundreds of examples in Collier County where commercial abuts zoning that permits single-family zoning. The PUD, which will be submitted as a companion item, will include development standards and buffers ensuring compatibility, and a conceptual master plan, identifying the location of the proposed uses on the property. It is unlikely that a domino effect for future commercial uses will be created if the proposed sub-district is approved. The proposed sub-district does not extend beyond the western limits of the commercial property located immediately north, across Golden Gate Parkway. The proposed amendment is consistent with policies found in the Collier County Growth Management Plan. a brief discussion of plan consistency follows: Future Land Use Element The Future Land Use Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan addresses in Objective 7 and implementing Policies 7.1 7.7 smart growth. The proposed project is 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Page 2 of 6 providing direct vehicular connections to the fronting arterial roadways – Santa Barbara Boulevard and Golden Gate Parkway. Policy 7.2 encourages internal accesses and loop roads. The proposed project will likely be developed as 3 or 4 independent commercial uses and all parcels within the planned development will be internally accessible without a requirement to utilize the external streets. With regard to Policy 7.3, it is not feasible to provide an interconnection to the west, which is developed with a single-family residence. A connection to the south is not feasible. The site is developed with the Bridge Prep Academy Charter School. The applicant discussed the potential interconnection with the school owners and the school did not support vehicular interconnection of the site due to potential conflicts during student pick-up and drop-off. A sidewalk does exist within the Santa Barbara Boulevard ROW which will provide pedestrian access between the school and proposed commercial uses. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) Policy 6.1.1 of the CCME requires that sites containing native vegetation to preserve a portion of the native vegetation or satisfy the requirement through off-site mitigation. The LDC contains standards for providing off-site native vegetation preservation to satisfy Policy 6.1.1. LDC Section 3.05.07.H.1.F. provides that where the on-site preserve requirement is less than 0.5 acres, the preservation may be satisfied by providing for off- site preservation, or payment to Conservation Collier. The applicant’s biologist has determined that the site contains approximately 1.42 acres of native vegetation requiring preservation of 0.21 acres, which is within the permissible threshold for off-site preservation consistent with Policy 6.1.1. and LDC Section 3.05.07.H.1.F. The environmental assessment includes an analysis of listed species as required in Objective 7.1 and implementing policies of the CCME. No listed species were observed on the site. The proposed PUD rezone is consistent with Objective 7.1. Transportation Element A traffic analysis has been completed for the project consistent with the requirements of the County’s Administrative Code. The TIS concludes that the project will not result in any LOS deficiencies consistent with Objective 1 of the Transportation Element. The proposed uses are supported by a consistent land use pattern for this major intersection, and an analysis indicating a demand for additional supply of retail commercial uses in this area. The existing church facility does not represent the highest and best use of the site located at this major intersection. Churches are permitted in neighborhood centers and as transitional conditional uses, subject to location standards. However, the church use would not be permitted today under the Golden Gate Estates Urban Estates Master Plan. The applicant has been approached by a number of commercial users seeking to be located at this vehicular high-volume intersection. 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Page 3 of 6 There are no other retail commercial properties located west of the subject site until you reach the intersection of Golden Gate Parkway and Goodlette-Frank Road, some 4+ miles from the property. Providing neighborhood retail commercial uses at this location will be convenient for nearby residents as well as pass-by motorists utilizing Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard. Authorizing limited commercial development on 6.4+/- acres is a logical land use change. Since adoption of the original Golden Gate Area Master Plan in 1990, the County has made significant roadway improvements and has expanded both Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard to their now 6-lane configuration, with dual turning lanes. The high volumes of pass- by trips through this intersection provide for increased commercial opportunities. From a professional planning perspective, this type of intersection is not conducive to or compatible for very low-density residential use. The three other quadrants of the intersection have been approved for retail and office commercial land uses. Properties immediately east, across Santa Barbara Boulevard, south of Golden Gate Parkway are zoned and developed with high density residential uses. The area immediately to the east is Golden Gate City, which represents one of the most densely populated areas of Collier County. This property is also located in Commission District #3, which has the second largest population of the five County Commission Districts. Recognizing the location and pattern of development occurring in the immediate vicinity, the proposed land use change is logical, and it is compatible with the surrounding development. Under the newly adopted modifications to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element, the site where the existing church is located would not be eligible for a transitional conditional use. The Plan recognizes that large intersections are not appropriate for low-density residential development. Use of the property for a church or similar conditional use does not represent the highest and best use of the property. Based on the analysis prepared for the privately initiated growth management plan amendment, the highest and best use would be commercial uses oriented to the nearby residents and traveling public. The site is not appropriate for very low density residential development at 1 du/2.25 units per acre. The subject site has property dimensions that provide for a greater depth from Golden Gate Parkway than most other commercially designated parcels located along Golden Gate Parkway east of Santa Barbara Boulevard. The site can easily accommodate uses such as convenience stores with fuel pumps and fast food restaurants, unlike many of the existing commercially zoned properties located along Golden Gate Parkway in Golden Gate City. There are no other retail commercial uses west of this site until you reach the intersection of Golden Gate Parkway and Goodlette-Frank Road, some 4+ miles from the subject property. Retail uses of the type permitted in the C-3 zoning district and limited C-4 zoning district as identified in the companion PUD rezoning application are designed to provide retail and personal service uses for nearby residents and the motoring public. The site has existing access locations already provided on Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard, which will provide directional access to the property not available to other sites in the vicinity of the project. 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Page 4 of 6 The recently adopted changes to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element suggest that the existing Professional Office designated parcels be re-designated as Downtown Center Commercial District, which continues to permit commercial land uses; however, staff has prohibited drive through restaurant and certain auto oriented uses. Again, due to the size and depth of many of these parcels located along Golden Gate Parkway in Golden Gate City, uses such as fast food restaurants and convenience stores with fuel pumps are not feasible land uses. The Golden Gate Area Master Plan, Policy 5.2.3, prohibits new commercial rezoning for properties abutting Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The applicant’s expert planner has evaluated this Policy, as well as the proposed modifications to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, and concluded that the proposed re- designation of this parcel for commercial uses consistent with the C-3 and limited C-4 uses zoning category makes professional planning sense, and is not inconsistent with the existing and proposed land uses on the three quadrants of the intersection of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The applicant’s consultant team has evaluated the property for commercial land uses and has concluded that C-3 level commercial uses are economically viable at this location. This site is located at the intersection of two 6-lane arterial roadways and is not proximate to I-75; therefore, motorists utilizing I-75 are not expected to be attracted to the proposed commercial uses. Given the existing population in the vicinity of the project and the high volume of traffic utilizing the intersection, I-75 traffic is not expected to exit and travel nearly 1 mile to the subject site for commercial goods and services. The proposed text amendment includes language that encourages a unified plan of development, which will result in a more uniform plan for development with consistent landscape buffer and signage at this major intersection. Access points to the site can be accommodated to meet Collier County’s access spacing policy. Water and sewer services will be available to the property through Collier County Utilities. Under Chapter 163 F.S., local governments are authorized to adopt and amend their comprehensive plans. Staff has requested that the applicant address three sections from Chapter 163. Chapter 163.3167 Scope of act.— (9) Each local government shall address in its comprehensive plan, as enumerated in this chapter, the water supply sources necessary to meet and achieve the existing and projected water use demand for the established planning period, considering the applicable plan developed pursuant to s. 373.709. The applicant intends to work with the Golden Gate City Sub-Region of the Collier County Water-Sewer District to obtain potable water and sewer services throughout the subject site. There is a potable water stub to the existing school, and we are planning on doing a directional 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Page 5 of 6 drill to connect to a water main on the north side of Golden Gate Parkway that will provide us a looped connection. For wastewater, the site is served by septic currently, but our plan is to install a pump station and connect into the county system to the north of the site on Golden Gate Parkway. There are no existing or anticipated treatment capacity issues for water and sewer services for the project. Chapter 163.3177 (6) (a) 2. The future land use plan and plan amendments shall be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, as applicable, including: a. The amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth. b. The projected permanent and seasonal population of the area. c. The character of undeveloped land. d. The availability of water supplies, public facilities, and services. e. The need for redevelopment, including the renewal of blighted areas and the elimination of nonconforming uses which are inconsistent with the character of the community. f. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to or closely proximate to military installations. g. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to an airport as defined in s. 330.35 and consistent with s. 333.02. h. The discouragement of urban sprawl. i. The need for job creation, capital investment, and economic development that will strengthen and diversify the community’s economy. j. The need to modify land uses and development patterns within antiquated subdivisions. The 6.4± acres at the intersection of two 6-lane arterial roadways is the amount of land required to permit development of the proposed commercial land uses. The analysis provided with the application documents the demand for the proposed commercial land uses. The land is currently developed with a church and is not undeveloped. The character of the site is urban given the proximity to two 6-lane arterial roadways. The site is in need of redevelopment. The church building is old and in need of rehabilitation or demolition. Development of the commercial uses at this location discourages urban sprawl and utilizes urban services that are in place to service a more intensive land use pattern. Golden Gate Estates is an antiquated subdivision that does represent urban sprawl and the County should embrace opportunities to make more efficient use of urban parcels. Chapter 163.3177 8. Future land use map amendments shall be based upon the following analyses: a. An analysis of the availability of facilities and services. 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Page 6 of 6 b. An analysis of the suitability of the plan amendment for its proposed use considering the character of the undeveloped land, soils, topography, natural resources, and historic resources on site. c. An analysis of the minimum amount of land needed to achieve the goals and requirements of this section. Public infrastructure exists to service the proposed uses within the Sub-district. The three other quadrants of the intersection provide for commercial uses, ranging from medical offices to general retail commercial. The property is bounded on two sides by 6-lane arterial roadways and providing commercial uses at this intersection is consistent with the land use pattern for all other quadrants of this intersection. The parcel includes only land currently occupied by the church and represents the minimum land area necessary to achieve the proposed plan amendment. 163.3184 Process for adoption of comprehensive plan or plan amendment. This Section of statute outlines the process and authority for the agency review of plan amendments. The applicant understands that regional and state reviewing agencies will be responsible for review of any transmitted comprehensive plan amendment per the requirements of Chapter 163.3184 F.S. The applicant’s experts are of the opinion that there are no regional or state impacts associated with the application. 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial COMMERCIAL NEEDS ANALYSIS FOR SUBJECT PROPERTY AT SW INTERSECTION OF GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY AND SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA August 21, 2020 Prepared for RaceTrac Petroleum Inc. 3225 Cumberland Blvd, Suite 100 Atlanta, GA 30339 Prepared by Real Estate Econometrics, Inc. Real Estate Econometrics, Inc. Suite 100 707 Orchid Drive Naples, Florida 34102 (239) 269-1341 Ree-i.com 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 1 Background RaceTrac Petroleum Inc. (“Client”) is submitting a Collier County Growth Management Plan (“GMP”) small scale amendment to change the zoning on 6.38 +/- acres located at the southwest corner of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard in Collier County, Florida. The property is located within the Estates Designation, Mixed Use District, Residential Estates Sub-District and is currently zoned E, Estates. The Client is seeking to change the Future Land Use Element (“FLUM”) to the Santa Barbara Boulevard & Golden Gate Parkway Commercial Sub-District. The Client is interested in developing the property as a C-3/C-4 Commercial site including 21,500 square feet of various uses as permitted in the C-1 through C- 3 designation and a potential “Car Wash” in the C-4 Category (“Subject Property”). The Client wants to develop a RaceTrac gas station/convenience story facility as a part of the site. They have separately prepared a companion gas station/convenience store needs analysis report “JUSTIFICATION & MARKET ANALYSIS - SWC of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard” dated August 21, 2020. The Client has retained Real Estate Econometrics, Inc. (“Consultant”) to prepare a Commercial Needs Analysis to determine the potential for developing the various C-3/C-4 uses on the Subject Site as required by the Collier County Future Land Use Element (“FLUE”). The FLUE requires a commercial needs analysis (”Study”) with the submittal of a GMP amendment. The Consultant is well-versed in preparing real estate needs analysis and market studies especially in the Southwest Florida marketplace. The commercial needs analysis is comprised of four parts; the site assessment, the demand component, the supply component and the demand/supply comparison analysis. 1.0 Site Assessment 1.1 Subject Property Attributes The Subject Property is located on the south side of Golden Gate Parkway and the west side of Santa Barbara Boulevard approximately a half mile east of Interstate 75 in Section 29 – Township 49 – Range 26. An aerial locator photo in Figure 1.1.1 is followed by a summary of the Subject Property’s legal, location, zoning, and land use attributes obtained from the Collier County Property Appraiser website is shown on the next page. 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 2 Figure 1.1.1 Source: Collier County Property Appraiser Source: Collier County Property Appraiser 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 3 1.2 Location Analysis The Subject Property’s location allows reasonable access to the site and provides for an ideal location for commercial activities. As noted above, the Subject Property is strategically located to accommodate the proposed C-3/C-4 commercial use. The commercial offerings will have high visibility to Santa Barbara Boulevard and Golden Gate Parkway. Figure 1.1.1 previously shows the location of the property. 2.0 Population Growth Around Subject Property 2.1 Overview of Collier County Population Growth. Currently, there are an estimated 379,900 people living year-round in Collier County. Since the 2000 Census, the County’s population has increased by just over 51%, the equivalent of 128,523 new residents as shown in Figure 2.2.1 below. Looking ahead, the County will continue to gain new residents at a rate greater than that of the state of Florida. By the year 2045, the population of Collier County is projected to total 548,900 residents. This is a projected annual growth rate of just under 2% from 2015 to 2040 compared to Florida’s annual growth rate of 1.08% during the same time period. Figure 2.2.1 Source: Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section Population growth in Collier County is primarily due to the in-migration of the ongoing arrival of baby boomer retirees. The number of baby boomers reaching retirement age peaks in 2020. Countywide Total Population Growth 2000 2010 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Permanent Population Estimates and Forecasts 251,377 321,520 336,560 343,802 379,900 413,700 443,600 471,100 508,556 548,990 5-year Percent Increase 6.93% 10.50% 8.90% 7.23% 6.20% 7.95% 7.95% 1.99%= Average Annual Growth Rate between 2015 and 2045 7.95% = Average 5-Year Growth between 2010 and 2030 to forecast 2035-2045 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 4 2.2 Five-Minute Drive Time Market Area The Urban Land Institute (“ULI”) defines commercial shopping centers in three categories. The categories are neighborhood, community and regional. Those categories are characterized by drive times and size in square feet as shown in Table 2.2.1 below. Table 2.2.1 Neighborhood Up to 10-Minute Drive Time = <100,000 Sqft Community 20-30 Minute Drive Time = 100,000 to 300,000 Sqft Regional 30-Minute and over Drive Time = >300,000 Sqft Source: Urban Land Institute, Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers, 2008 The Subject Property proposed development plan would categorize it as a Convenience Center, which is a subset of the Neighborhood Center. ULI defines Convenience Centers in their 2008 Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers as follows: “The Convenience shopping center provides for the sale of personal services and convenience goods similar to those of a neighborhood center. It contains a minimum of three stores with a total gross leasable area of 30,000 square feet or less. Instead of being anchored by a supermarket, a convenience center is usually anchored by some other type of convenience service such as a minimarket.” Drive time areas are calculated by Environmental Systems Research Institute (“ESRI”). The ESRI Business Analyst program calculates drive times by actual street networks and posted speed limits. In general, Neighborhood Centers have a drive time area of up to 10 minutes, Community Centers have a drive time area of 10 to 20 minutes depending on the size and Regional Centers have a drive time area of 30 minutes and over depending on the size. Since the Subject Property is proposed for 21,500 square feet of commercial space, it falls within a subset of the Neighborhood Center category as a Convenience Center and would therefore have a smaller drive time market area. Therefore, the supply/demand analysis will be performed on a five-minute drive time market area. 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 5 Figure 2.2.1 below depicts the five-minute drive time area to the Subject Property. Figure 2.2.1 Five-Minute Drive Time to Subject Property Source: ESRI ArcGIS Business Analyst Mapping System (Rest of Page Left Intentionally Blank) 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 6 In order to determine commercial demand coming from the five-minute drive time market area, it is important to first determine the population in the five-minute drive time market area. The first step in determining the population in the five- minute drive time market area is to calculate the population from each of the planning communities intersected by the 5-mile drive time market area. Figure 2.2.2 below indicates the planning communities in the market area. The number 12 planning area is the Urban Fringe Planning Area, number 2 is Central Naples Planning Area and Number 3 is the Golden Gate Planning Area. Figure 2.2.2 Collier County Planning Communities in Subject Market Area The next step is to determine the percentage of each planning community that fall within the five-minute drive time market area. Figure 2.2.3 on the next page shows the planning communities overlaid on a map of all the parcels that fall within the five-minute drive time market. 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 7 Figure 2.2.3 Market Area Planning Communities From Figure 2.2.3 above, the Consultant determined that 60% of the five-minute drive time market area falls in the Golden Gate planning community, 20% of the five-minute drive time market area falls in the Urban Estates planning community and 205 of the five-minute drive time market area falls in the Central Naples planning community. The Consultant then utilized the most recent (June 14, 2018) population projections by planning community found on the County website and as shown in Appendix A. The 2020 population projections highlighted in green in the Appendix were used as they reflect the current population situation in Collier County. 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 8 The resulting 2020 populations for the three planning communities were multiplied by the previously determined percentages of each planning community to arrive at the five-minute drive time market area population as shown in Table 2.2.1 below. The current drive time population is 41,153. Table 2.2.1 Drive Time Population Calculation Source: Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section, ESRI ARCgis Mapping and the Consultant 3.0 MARKET ANALYSIS 3.1 Market Area Demand The most reliable indicator of commercial market demand is to determine the amount of commercial square footage built within a particular market area then divide that total amount by that market area’s population to arrive at a square feet per capita (person) demand figure. Historical commercial development in relation to population growth encompasses all aspects of land development over time including geography, economic fluctuations and various commercial uses as they relate to market demographics. Collier County in particular has shown a propensity for commercial development to follow residential development as the primary economic drivers are tourism, agriculture and real estate construction. The limited economic diversification fuels residential development, which then supports commercial development as peoples moving into the County require goods and services. Therefore, the commercial square feet per capita measure takes into account all of the factors previously mentioned. It is important to first understand the County’s total per capita demand as that encompasses all commercial development and population plus covers both the urban and rural areas. To perform this task, the Consultant utilized the 2014 commercial inventory spreadsheets by planning area as provided by the Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section (“CCCPS”) to determine the total amount of commercial square footage built in the County as of 2014. Acreage not built upon was not used in this calculation. Planning Area 2020 Population Percent Drive Time Population Golden Gate 45,792 60.00% 27,475 Urban Estates 48,655 20.00% 9,731 Central Naples 19,734 20.00% 3,947 41,153 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9 The Consultant then used the 2020 Collier County population from the CCCPS to calculate the commercial square footage per capita in the County. The Commercial square foot demand per capita in Collier County is 70.06 as shown in Table 3.1.1 below. The Collier County commercial demand per square foot is very conservative in nature since this calculation uses the 2020 population and the 2014 inventory list from Collier County. The inventory list needs to be updated to account for commercial construction that has occurred between 2014 and 2020. Table 3.1.1 Collier County 2014 Planning Area Square Feet Immokalee Area 2,355,554 Marco Island 158,081 Central Naples 2,732,949 Corkscrew 70,748 East Naples 4,244,976 Golden Gate 1,574,301 North Naples 9,726,289 Royal Fakapalm 522,764 Rural Estates 452,781 South Naples 2,277,828 Urban Estates 2,500,631 26,616,902 2020 Population 379,900 (October 1st Fiscal Year) Demand in Square Feet: 70.06 Source: Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section With that perspective as background and in order to calculate the demand numbers for the Subject Property’s particular market area, the Consultant used the 2014 commercial inventory spreadsheet for the Golden Gate, Central Naples and Urban Estates planning areas that are covered by the Subject Property’s five-minute drive time area. The drive time area is located within approximately 60% of the Golden Gate and 20% each of the Central Naples and Urban Estates planning areas. The Consultant then took 60% of the existing commercial square footage in the Golden Gate planning area and 20% each of the Central Naples and Urban Estates planning areas commercial square footage, added them together and divided by the drive time population thus yielding a demand of 48.39 square feet of commercial space per capita as shown in Table 3.1.2 on the next page. 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 10 Table 3.1.2 Source: Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section and Consultant The next step in the demand analysis is to calculate the future population growth to 2030 of the five-minute drive time market area. A five-year growth percent for the market area is needed to derive the population numbers for 2020, 2025 and 2030. The consultant again utilized the most recent (June 14, 2018) population projections by planning community for the years 2010 and 2015 as shown in green in Appendix A to determine a weighted average population growth percentage for the five-minute drive time market area as shown in Table 3.1.3 below. Table 3.1.3 Source: Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section and the Consultant With the five-minute drive time market area estimated population calculated using a 3.04% growth rate and commercial demand in square feet per capita determined, the Consultant calculated the estimated commercial square footage demand for the five-minute drive time market area through the year 2030 as shown in Table 3.1.4 below. Table 3.1.4 Source: Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section and the Consultant Planning Area 2014 Sq. Ft. Percent Drive Time Sq. Ft. Golden Gate 1,574,301 60.00% 944,581 Urban Estates 2,500,631 20.00% 500,126 Central Naples 2,732,949 20.00% 546,590 1,991,297 2020 5-Minute Drive Time Population: 41,153 Market Area Square Feet Per Capita: 48.39 Percent Planning Area 2015 2020 Drive Time Percent Central Naples 18,845 19,195 1.86% 20.0% 0.37% Urban Estates 38,658 42,313 9.45% 20.0% 1.89% Golden Gate 44,925 45,506 1.29% 60.0% 0.78% 3.04% 2020 2025 2030 5-Minute Drive Time Population 41,153 42,403 43,692 Demand Square Feet Per Capita 48.39 48.39 48.39 Commercial Square Feet Demand 1,991,297 2,051,799 2,114,140 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 11 3.2 Market Area Supply The next step in the commercial needs analysis is to determine the amount of existing and potential competing commercial square footage in the 5-minumte drive time market area. The Consultant performed a three-part process in the ARCgis desktop program to determine both the existing and potential competing commercial parcels that would be used in the analysis. The first step in the process is to join all of the Collier County Property Appraiser data with the ARCgis program. The second step is to join the five-minute drive time market area overlay shape file with the Property Appraiser data. The final step is to join the Excel commercial inventory data obtained from Collier County Comprehensive Planning Staff with the five-minute drive time market area. This last step required joining the Golden Gate Planning Area, the Central Naples Planning Area and the Urban Estates Planning Area Inventory spreadsheets with the five-minute drive time market area since the drive time area encompassed portions of the three planning areas. All of the developed and undeveloped commercial parcels included within the five-minute drive time market area are shown in Appendix Tables B and C at the end of this analysis. Three vacant parcels highlighted in yellow in Appendix C were eliminated from the analysis as they either had a C-5 uses category on it per the Collier County’s PUD Master List updated August 15, 2018 or within the PUD ordinances had a Hotel/Motel use which is not allowed under the C-3 category if not in a mixed use activity center. See Appendix D for those PUD ordinances. The Consultant then used a floor area ratio (“FAR”) that consists of using all of the commercial square footage built within the five-minute drive time market area and dividing that by the developed acreage to obtain an average square footage per acre FAR that is indicative of the true market area supply being developed to meet the commercial demand being generated from the drive time market area. Table 3.2.1 on the next page indicates the total amount of existing and potential commercial square feet in the five-minute drive time market area. 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 12 Table 3.2.1 Source: Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section, Collier County Property Appraiser and ESRI ARCgis mapping system 3.3 Supply – Demand Analysis The final step in the Commercial Needs Analysis is to put the supply and demand calculations together in order to determine the oversupply or undersupply of commercial space in the five-minute drive time area both with the current existing and potential commercial square footage and with the proposed project acreage being included in the supply totals. Table 3.3.1 below shows that calculation. Table 3.3.1 Source: Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section, Collier County Property Appraiser, ESRI ARCgis mapping system and the Consultant Adding the proposed 21,500 square feet of commercial space proposed for the Subject Property is shown in Table 3.3.2 on the next page. 5-Minute Drive Time Commercial Supply Parcels Acres Square Feet FAR Developed Commercial 58 53.14 315,876 5,944 Undeveloped Commercial 122 192.58 1,144,738 5,944 Totals 180 245.72 1,460,614 Retail Demand (sq. ft.) 2020 2025 2030 Demand Per GMD Commercial Inventory & Population1,991,297 2,051,799 2,114,140 Retail Supply Developed 315,876 315,876 315,876 Vacant 1,144,738 1,144,738 1,144,738 Total Supply 1,460,614 1,460,614 1,460,614 Allocation Ratio 0.73 0.71 0.69 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 13 Table 3.3.2 Source: Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section, Collier County Property Appraiser, ESRI ARCgis mapping system and the Consultant The future demand looks out to the Collier County’s Comprehensive Plan’s horizon year, which is currently 2030, which matches Collier County’s 10-year planning horizon. It is at this point of the analysis that has caused an anomaly in determining a true economic supply and demand result. On the supply side, it is relatively easy to determine the amount of existing and approved supply from the property appraiser data. The difficulty lies in the vacant non-approved potential lands. Collier County Staff requires the Applicant to take all of those lands that have a commercial overlay on them and include them as supply by putting a floor area ratio figure to the acreage. The issue becomes apparent when all of the lands that are not in the existing or approved category are included in the particular land use analysis. By putting all of the potential lands in the supply category, the assumption is that all of that land would be developed as that particular land use overlay and nothing else. The flaw in that representation is all of those vacant approved parcels and parcels designated by the FLUM as having the potential to be developed as one use, which could be a non-competing or some other commercial use. The same parcels are also counted as competing supply when a commercial needs analysis is performed for another commercial use. Essentially, they are double counted in both analyses when they will actually be developed as the market demand dictates. A general economic principal states that all markets are efficient and that supply for the most part is generated as demand dictates. It is a rare situation where commercial supply generates demand. Retail Demand (sq. ft.) 2020 2025 2030 Demand Per GMD Commercial Inventory & Population1,991,297 2,051,799 2,114,140 Retail Supply Developed 337,376 337,376 337,376 Vacant 1,144,738 1,144,738 1,144,738 Total Supply 1,482,114 1,482,114 1,482,114 Allocation Ratio 0.74 0.72 0.70 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 14 The allocation ratio measures the amount of additional acreage required in relation to the directly utilized acreage to assure proper market functioning in the sale, usage and allocation of land. The additional acreage is required in order to maintain market level pricing and to account for the likelihood that certain lands will not be placed on the market for sale during the forecast horizon or may be subject to future environmental or other constraints. Thus, the lands allocated in the FLUM should be considerably greater than those that will actually be used or developed. Basic economic principals have shown that markets are efficient in terms of supply and demand and the ultimate lack of available commercial choices creates an impediment to the market functioning properly. One must also consider that not all of the office/commercial designation in the future land use map will be developed as such since the owners of those properties will only develop the land with uses that respond to market demand. The increased acres will maintain flexibility within the comprehensive plan, keep prices reasonable by not constraining land supply, and compensate for lands which may be unavailable for sale or subject to environmental or other development constraints. Growth management practices have suggested that the greater the time horizon of the comprehensive plan, the greater the allocation ratio needed to maintain flexibility of the comprehensive plan. Other factors that influence the residential acreage allocation ratio are the nature and speed of the developing area and the area’s general exposure to growth trends in the market. The Consultant believes that to ensure proper flexibility in the comprehensive plan of a rapidly growing county like Collier, a commercial allocation ratio in the range of 1.25 to 1.50 is necessary to maintain planning flexibility and to account for the double counting of land uses. History has shown that the former Florida Department of Community Affairs (“DCA”) (Currently the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity) (“DEO”) has recommended an allocation ratio of 1.25 in the horizon year of a comprehensive plan yet it had seen and approved allocation ratios in the 1.8 to 2.4 range and in some cases even larger allocation ratios for longer forecast horizons. Otherwise, if allocation ratios are not used in the analysis, then an appropriate breakdown of the potential lands between the various land use types needs to be undertaken in order to more accurately analyze the need for a comprehensive land use change. 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 15 However, in this situation 80% of the drive time area (Golden Gate and Central Naples) is close to being built out and therefore the supply has also reached its saturation point with the lack of available commercial land to satisfy the demand. Therefore, the allocation ratio is going to be below the 1.0 equilibrium allocation ratio where supply meets demand. As a result, the need for additional vacant lands and an allocation ratio at or greater than 1.15 (Collier County’s allocation ratio) to allow for flexibility is not applicable. 4.0 CONCLUSIONS 4.1 The Consultant used all of the data and analysis in the previous sections to determine the total supply and demand for commercial space in the Subject Property’s market area from 2020 through 2030. The results compellingly show that the addition of the Subject Property to the Collier County commercial inventory will not adversely affect the balance of commercial supply in the five-minute drive time area. The Allocation Ratio is well below the 1.15 Collier County allocation ratio threshold in the Collier County Comprehensive Plan 2030 horizon year with the addition of the Subject Property. This drive time area, in particular Golden Gate City, is rapidly approaching its build out capacity in terms of population and with the lack of commercially designated parcels, it will always show more demand than supply until such time as potentially future zoning allows for more multi-family projects and the conversion of residential to commercial designation on parcels of land that dictate such a use. 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 16 APPENDICIES 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 17 Appendix A – Collier County Permanent Population Estimates and Projections 9.A.1.gPacket Pg. 281Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- 18 Appendix Table B – Five-Minute Drive Time Developed Competing Commercial Parcels Count FID ACRES SITE ADDRESS DOR LAND USE SQ. FT. 1 1157 0.23 4748 GOLDEN GATE PKWY Mixed Use - Store/Office (with SFR) 2,664 1 1433 0.48 12585 COLLIER BLVD Mixed Use - Store/Office (with SFR) 7,260 1 16276 0.91 5465 AIRPORT RD N Drive Thru Restaurant 3,803 1 17194 5.23 4800 AIRPORT RD N Mixed Use - Store/Office (with SFR) 883 1 19879 1.07 3427 ENTERPRISE AVE Mixed Use - Store/Office (with SFR) 6,000 1 19899 1.39 3506 PROSPECT AVE Mixed Use - Store/Office (with SFR) 1,160 1 19976 0.56 3985 ENTERPRISE AVE Mixed Use - Store/Office (with SFR) 6,400 1 19979 1.20 971 AIRPORT RD N Mixed Use - Store/Office (with SFR) 10,631 1 20014 1.41 505 AIRPORT RD N Mixed Use - Store/Office (with SFR) 6,104 1 20016 0.99 3485 MERCANTILE AVE Mixed Use - Store/Office (with SFR) 5,151 1 20018 1.14 3884 PROSPECT AVE Mixed Use - Store/Office (with SFR) 1,266 1 20036 1.07 3763 ENTERPRISE AVE Mixed Use - Store/Office (with SFR) 12,000 1 20050 1.15 3994 MERCANTILE AVE Mixed Use - Store/Office (with SFR) 686 1 20179 1.13 3706 PROGRESS AVE Mixed Use - Store/Office (with SFR) 12,865 1 20187 1.04 3784 ARNOLD AVE Mixed Use - Store/Office (with SFR) 14,400 1 20189 0.58 3813 ARNOLD AVE Mixed Use - Store/Office (with SFR) 5,850 1 20241 1.24 3927 DOMESTIC AVE Mixed Use - Store/Office (with SFR) 1,800 1 20242 0.57 4027 ARNOLD AVE Mixed Use - Store/Office (with SFR) 10,228 1 20246 0.50 4327 MERCANTILE AVE Mixed Use - Store/Office (with SFR) 6,000 1 20257 0.58 4327 ARNOLD AVE Mixed Use - Store/Office (with SFR) 7,000 1 20270 1.18 1470 DON ST Mixed Use - Store/Office (with SFR) 9,250 1 20286 0.82 1011 AIRPORT RD N Drive Thru Restaurant 3,144 1 20338 1.13 3839 DOMESTIC AVE Mixed Use - Store/Office (with SFR) 3,953 1 20343 1.13 4227 EXCHANGE AVE Mixed Use - Store/Office (with SFR) 6,000 1 20386 1.57 3737 DOMESTIC AVE Mixed Use - Store/Office (with SFR) 7,350 1 20393 2.35 3940 PROSPECT AVE Mixed Use - Store/Office (with SFR) 28,466 1 54642 1.05 2682 HORSESHOE CT Mixed Use - Store/Office (with SFR) 4,225 1 73550 1.05 8875 DAVIS BLVD Drive Thru Restaurant 4,310 1 73551 0.90 8835 DAVIS BLVD Drive Thru Restaurant 2,441 1 81069 1.01 7385 RADIO RD Mixed Use - Store/Office (with SFR) 11,032 1 81071 2.58 7387 DEVONSHIRE BLVD Mixed Use - Store/Office (with SFR) 19,612 1 81077 1.72 3701 SANTA BARBARA BLVD Service Station Convenience Store 960 1 85109 1.06 2427 TARPON BAY BLVD Drive Thru Restaurant 2,810 1 92042 0.49 1450 AIRPORT RD N Mixed Use - Store/Office (with SFR) 5,000 1 92881 0.69 171 COMMERCIAL BLVD Mixed Use - Store/Office (with SFR) 8,625 1 92919 1.11 4707 ENTERPRISE AVE Mixed Use - Store/Office (with SFR) 10,200 1 96750 0.46 4055 SANTA BARBARA BLVD Service Station Convenience Store 1376 1 111423 1.13 12055 COLLIER BLVD Drive Thru Restaurant 4,643 1 111520 0.27 3930 GREEN BLVD Mixed Use - Store/Office (with SFR) 1,000 1 111594 0.12 4021 23RD AVE SW Mixed Use - Store/Office (with SFR) 3,432 1 111692 0.74 4712 GOLDEN GATE PKWY Service Station Convenience Store 3400 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 19 1 111698 1.00 Behind BP Service Station Convenience Store 3,530 1 112354 0.34 5043 CORONADO PKWY Mixed Use - Store/Office (with SFR) 4,470 1 112950 0.57 1938 SANTA BARBARA BLVD Mixed Use - Store/Office (with SFR) 3,026 1 112956 0.21 1828 SANTA BARBARA BLVD Mixed Use - Store/Office (with SFR) 2,450 1 112965 0.29 1724 SANTA BARBARA BLVD Mixed Use - Store/Office (with SFR) 2,400 1 112966 0.29 1710 SANTA BARBARA BLVD Mixed Use - Store/Office (with SFR) 2,400 1 113548 0.14 2200 SANTA BARBARA BLVD Mixed Use - Store/Office (with SFR) 1,487 1 113551 0.14 2180 SANTA BARBARA BLVD Mixed Use - Store/Office (with SFR) 2,000 1 113552 0.43 2170 SANTA BARBARA BLVD Mixed Use - Store/Office (with SFR) 5,960 1 113752 0.49 2310 HUNTER BLVD Mixed Use - Store/Office (with SFR) 1,534 1 113924 0.38 5269 GOLDEN GATE PKWY Mixed Use - Store/Office (with SFR) 3,429 1 114099 0.69 2772 SANTA BARBARA BLVD Mixed Use - Store/Office (with SFR) 3,600 1 114781 0.14 5192 GOLDEN GATE PKWY Mixed Use - Store/Office (with SFR) 2,250 1 114835 0.14 4930 GOLDEN GATE PKWY Mixed Use - Store/Office (with SFR) 2,000 1 114836 0.57 4920 GOLDEN GATE PKWY Mixed Use - Store/Office (with SFR) 5,540 1 223940 1.22 5065 GOLDEN GATE PKWY Drive Thru Restaurant 3,257 1 223941 1.04 5055 GOLDEN GATE PKWY Drive Thru Restaurant 3,163 58 53.14 315,876 Avg. Bldg. Square Feet per Acre: 5,944 Source: Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section Commercial Inventory, Collier County Property Appraiser and ArcGIS (Rest of Page Left Intentionally Blank) 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 20 Appendix Table C – five-minute Drive Time Undeveloped Competing Parcels COUNT FID ACRES_GIS S_ADDRESS DOR LAND USE 1 4742 3.15 3868 CITY GATE BLVD N Vacant Commercial 1 4745 3.60 3860 BRENNAN DR Vacant Commercial 1 4746 3.66 3854 BRENNAN DR Vacant Commercial 1 4761 1.31 3106 HORSESHOE DR Vacant Commercial 1 17442 12.55 Vacant Commercial 1 19849 0.27 Vacant Commercial 1 20414 0.30 Vacant Commercial 1 21506 2.03 Vacant Commercial 1 21514 1.45 11899 COLLIER BLVD Vacant Commercial 0 23452 0.00 10545 COLLIER BLVD Vacant Commercial 1 23453 3.27 Vacant Commercial 1 23457 3.76 Vacant Commercial 0 23460 0.00 10535 COLLIER BLVD Vacant Commercial 1 24588 1.12 4776 RADIO RD Vacant Commercial 1 27487 10.42 Vacant Commercial 1 27489 3.51 Vacant Commercial 1 27490 0.12 Vacant Commercial 1 27533 4.59 Vacant Commercial 1 27606 15.12 4670 SANTA BARBARA BLVD Vacant Commercial 1 28886 2.96 6350 DAVIS BLVD Vacant Commercial 1 28948 12.15 Vacant Commercial 1 53579 0.89 Vacant Commercial 1 53582 0.95 Vacant Commercial 1 53585 1.63 Vacant Commercial 1 53632 1.08 Vacant Commercial 1 53653 1.10 724 GOODLETTE-FRANK RD N Vacant Commercial 1 53655 4.45 870 GOODLETTE-FRANK RD N Vacant Commercial 1 53656 0.13 9 GOODLETTE-FRANK RD N Vacant Commercial 1 53660 2.01 840 GOODLETTE-FRANK RD N Vacant Commercial 1 54604 1.34 2629 HORSESHOE DR S Vacant Commercial 1 56242 0.21 18 MANDARIN RD Vacant Commercial 1 60596 0.60 GOLDEN GATE PKWY Vacant Commercial 1 73553 0.62 8845 DAVIS BLVD Vacant Commercial 1 73642 1.55 116 JOYROSE PL Vacant Commercial 0 73648 0.00 195 BEDZEL CIR Vacant Commercial 1 86668 1.06 13005 COLLIER BLVD Vacant Commercial 1 86669 1.33 12985 COLLIER BLVD Vacant Commercial 1 86671 1.04 12995 COLLIER BLVD Vacant Commercial 1 90895 4.70 3814 CITY GATE BLVD S Vacant Commercial 1 90900 2.32 3818 CITY GATE BLVD S Vacant Commercial 1 90947 3.51 3822 CITY GATE BLVD S Vacant Commercial 1 90990 2.68 3841 CITY GATE BLVD N Vacant Commercial 1 90991 1.42 3837 CITY GATE BLVD N Vacant Commercial 1 90993 1.74 3815 WHITE LAKE BLVD Vacant Commercial 1 90994 1.67 3811 WHITE LAKE BLVD Vacant Commercial 1 90997 4.33 3807 WHITE LAKE BLVD Vacant Commercial 1 91000 1.02 3836 WHITE LAKE BLVD Vacant Commercial 1 91002 1.16 3826 WHITE LAKE BLVD Vacant Commercial 1 91004 4.06 3808 WHITE LAKE BLVD Vacant Commercial 1 91006 4.55 3798 WHITE LAKE BLVD Vacant Commercial 1 91010 1.97 3863 CITY GATE BLVD N Vacant Commercial 1 91011 2.33 3869 CITY GATE BLVD N Vacant Commercial 1 91013 2.17 3874 CITY GATE BLVD N Vacant Commercial 1 91014 5.05 3856 CITY GATE BLVD N Vacant Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 21 1 91016 3.02 3855 BRENNAN DR Vacant Commercial 1 91017 2.97 3853 BRENNAN DR Vacant Commercial 1 91018 2.96 3847 BRENNAN DR Vacant Commercial 1 91020 2.95 3843 BRENNAN DR Vacant Commercial 1 91021 2.91 3839 BRENNAN DR Vacant Commercial 1 91706 1.65 3823 WHITE LAKE BLVD Vacant Commercial 1 91707 1.88 3819 WHITE LAKE BLVD Vacant Commercial 1 91712 4.95 3851 CITY GATE BLVD N Vacant Commercial 1 91713 1.98 3857 CITY GATE BLVD N Vacant Commercial 1 92044 0.23 Vacant Commercial 1 97465 0.06 Vacant Commercial 1 97512 0.09 Vacant Commercial 1 97529 0.05 Vacant Commercial 1 97530 0.11 Vacant Commercial 1 97533 0.09 Vacant Commercial 1 97534 0.38 Vacant Commercial 1 109054 2.13 Vacant Commercial 1 109055 1.79 Vacant Commercial 1 109073 0.37 Vacant Commercial 1 109074 0.28 Vacant Commercial 1 110025 1.29 4100 GOLDEN GATE PKWY Vacant Commercial 1 110104 0.30 Vacant Commercial 1 110114 0.38 Vacant Commercial 1 110119 0.30 Vacant Commercial 1 111342 0.26 1998 40TH TER SW Vacant Commercial 1 111343 0.23 1982 40TH TER SW Vacant Commercial 1 111344 0.23 1972 40TH TER SW Vacant Commercial 1 111345 0.23 1962 40TH TER SW Vacant Commercial 1 111346 0.23 1952 40TH TER SW Vacant Commercial 1 111347 0.23 1942 40TH TER SW Vacant Commercial 1 111348 0.23 1932 40TH TER SW Vacant Commercial 1 111417 0.46 12215 COLLIER BLVD Vacant Commercial 1 111421 0.17 Vacant Commercial 1 111422 0.19 Vacant Commercial 1 111426 0.18 Vacant Commercial 1 111430 0.38 Vacant Commercial 1 111517 0.23 12525 COLLIER BLVD Vacant Commercial 1 111518 0.23 12535 COLLIER BLVD Vacant Commercial 1 111592 0.06 Vacant Commercial 1 111593 0.06 Vacant Commercial 1 111596 0.06 11853 COLLIER BLVD Vacant Commercial 1 111689 0.23 4740 GOLDEN GATE PKWY Vacant Commercial 1 112857 0.14 1740 SANTA BARBARA BLVD Vacant Commercial 1 112951 0.14 1900 SANTA BARBARA BLVD Vacant Commercial 1 112952 0.14 1858 SANTA BARBARA BLVD Vacant Commercial 1 112953 0.14 1848 SANTA BARBARA BLVD Vacant Commercial 1 112954 0.14 1842 SANTA BARBARA BLVD Vacant Commercial 1 112961 0.07 1756 SANTA BARBARA BLVD Vacant Commercial 1 112962 0.14 1756 SANTA BARBARA BLVD Vacant Commercial 1 112963 0.14 1756 SANTA BARBARA BLVD Vacant Commercial 1 112964 0.14 1740 SANTA BARBARA BLVD Vacant Commercial 1 113543 0.14 5587 22ND PL SW Vacant Commercial 1 113544 0.14 2240 SANTA BARBARA BLVD Vacant Commercial 1 113545 0.14 2230 SANTA BARBARA BLVD Vacant Commercial 1 113553 0.14 2140 SANTA BARBARA BLVD Vacant Commercial 1 113554 0.14 2130 SANTA BARBARA BLVD Vacant Commercial 1 113555 0.14 2120 SANTA BARBARA BLVD Vacant Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 22 1 113556 0.14 2110 SANTA BARBARA BLVD Vacant Commercial 1 113557 0.14 2100 SANTA BARBARA BLVD Vacant Commercial 1 113559 0.14 2088 SANTA BARBARA BLVD Vacant Commercial 1 113560 0.14 2080 SANTA BARBARA BLVD Vacant Commercial 1 113561 0.14 2072 SANTA BARBARA BLVD Vacant Commercial 1 113562 0.14 2064 SANTA BARBARA BLVD Vacant Commercial 1 113567 0.14 2024 SANTA BARBARA BLVD Vacant Commercial 1 113569 0.17 2000 SANTA BARBARA BLVD Vacant Commercial 1 113931 0.38 5349 GOLDEN GATE PKWY Vacant Commercial 1 114097 0.31 Vacant Commercial 1 114486 0.36 5472 GOLDEN GATE PKWY Vacant Commercial 1 114487 0.38 5436 GOLDEN GATE PKWY Vacant Commercial 1 114489 0.38 5350 GOLDEN GATE PKWY Vacant Commercial 1 114491 0.48 5300 GOLDEN GATE PKWY Vacant Commercial 122 192.58 Source: Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section Commercial Inventory, Collier County Property Appraiser and ArcGIS (Rest of Page Left Intentionally Blank) 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 23 Appendix D – PUD Ordinances of Eliminated Parcels 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 24 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 25 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 26 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 27 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 28 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 29 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 30 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 31 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 32 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 33 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 34 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 35 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 36 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 37 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 1 EXHIBIT V.D2 JUSTIFICATION & MARKET ANALYSIS SWC of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard August 21, 2020 RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc. 200 Galleria Parkway Southeast Suite 900 Atlanta, GA 30339 Collier County Growth Management Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 2 Introduction RaceTrac Petroleum Inc. (“Client”) is submitting a Collier County Growth Management Plan (“GMP”) small-scale amendment to change the zoning on 6.38 +/- acres located at the southwest corner of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard in Collier County, Florida. The property is located within the Estates Designation, Mixed Used District, Residential Estates Sub-District and is currently zoned E, Estates. The Client is seeking to change the Future Land Use Element (“FLUM”) to the Santa Barbara Boulevard & Golden Gate Parkway Commercial Sub-District. The Client is interested in developing the property as a C-3/C-4 Commercial site including a gas station with convenience store included within 21,500 square feet of various uses as permitted in the C-1 through C-3 designation and a potential “Car Wash” in the C-4 Category (“Subject Property”). This needs analysis report is in support of the gas station/convenience store portion of the property. The commercial needs analysis for the proposed 21,500 square feet of commercial space may be found in the “Commercial Needs Analysis for Subject Property at SW Intersection of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard Collier County, Florida” companion report prepared by Real Estate Econometrics, Inc. At the proposed RaceTrac location on the southwest corner of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard, RaceTrac’s real estate analysis team strongly believes this submarket of Collier County is not only underserved by the total quantity of fuel and convenience options available, but also in the quality of those existing facilities serving Naples residents. For these two specific reasons, RaceTrac is excited about the opportunity to serve Naples residents at this location. The existing average annual daily traffic counts are of significant appeal for RaceTrac in identifying this trade area. Per FDOT 2018 data, daily trips on Golden Gate Parkway are 50,000 vehicles per day (VPD) and 38,500 VPD on Santa Barbara Boulevard. Convenience stores are 61% bypass, meaning that 61% of the cars utilizing them were already on the road and stopped for convenience. Headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc. is a third-generation led, family-owned company that owns and operates approximately 557 RaceTrac convenience stores across five southern states: Florida, Georgia, Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. RaceTrac also operates approximately 250 RaceWay locations in twelve states throughout the south. In Florida, RaceTrac currently operates 244 RaceTrac stores and 40 RaceWay locations and has over 50 additional projects in development. RaceTrac strives to carry out our vision of being the “Convenience Store of Choice” by offering more than 4,000 retail and grocery items to address our guests’ needs, including premium food offerings and endless beverage options. The company debuted the new 5,500 square foot model stores in 2016 with the aim of making people’s lives simpler and more enjoyable. These new prototypes feature indoor and outdoor seating, an expansive coffee bar, Swirl World frozen yogurt, and free Wi-Fi in addition to the large selection of premium beverage and food items. Quality of Existing Fuel & Convenience Providers Traveling from the subject site two miles north and south along both Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard, there are a total of four convenience store competitors. All of theses competitors are within the primary market of the subject site, and for the purpose of our internal analyses, this two-mile distance represents the trade area for this potential site. 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 3 As displayed on the aerial image above and outlined on the table below, Shell is located to the north of the subject property. There is also a 7Eleven and Shell to the south of the subject property on Santa Barbara Boulevard and a Speedway to the east. There are no fuel/convenience stores to the west of the proposed site within the 2 mile radius. Competitor Dispensers Primary Direction Served Distance (mi) Speedway 2 Eastbound 0.8 7Eleven 6 Southbound 1.4 Shell 4 Northbound 1.3 Shell 6 Southbound 1.6 RaceTrac’s new architectural design sets a new standard among competitors within the market. This standard not only elevates the convenience store sector, but all retailers. The existing competitors in the market should be compared to these new efforts and allowing RaceTrac to build on the subject property will establish a new baseline for retail architectural efforts. Many of the existing convenience stores referenced below would likely need to enhance offerings to stay competitive in the market place. Speedway – 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 4 7Eleven/Mobil – Shell (Northbound) – Shell (Southbound) – 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 5 Quantitative Analysis The existing fuel retailers provide only 18 multiple product dispensers (MPDs) in total within the market trade area of the subject site. Along Santa Barbara Boulevard at the proposed location, there are 38,500 vehicles based on FDOT’s traffic data while on Golden Gate Parkway there are 50,000 vehicles. In light of the volume of traffic on Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard generated by our demographic provider’s estimate of the total population of 50,100 people living and working within the trade area, 18 MPDs represents a deficient number of fueling stations to adequately meet the needs of Collier County residents in the area based upon the real estate analysis team’s assessment. Upon closer examination, the following will prove a lack of supply as it relates specifically to the combined 88,500 vehicles traveling along this corridor. The National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS) average fuel gallons per retail outlet for 2018 in Florida were 53,181 gallons per outlet per week. For the purposes of this analysis, the analysis team has calculated the existing convenience stores’ fuel gallons along Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard to align with the NACS average for the state. NACS states the average driver consumes 10.6 gallons of fuel per week, which aligns with that of internal data. Additionally, the analysis team considered a volume-per-dispenser approach. Based upon NACS averages, a typical convenience store pumps 318,369 gallons per dispenser per year. For purposes of analysis, both methods are averaged together to ensure a complete picture. Based upon these calculations, the annual demand in this trade area equates to 48,781,200 million gallons as represented on the tables below. The combined annual fuel volumes for the existing convenience stores as outlined above calculate to 8,396,145 million gallons per year. This creates a supply deficit of over 40 million gallons per year. Market Supply 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 6 Market Demand & Summary Conclusion When compared to the total number of consumers who live and work in the area and travel along Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard in front of the proposed intersection, the total number of existing convenience stores is inadequate to meet the needs of Collier County residents. Additionally, the convenience stores that do exist represent potentially both a substandard customer experience and a non-competitive product offering. RaceTrac is ready and eager to meet the needs of Collier County residents within this trade area. Every new RaceTrac brings approximately 20 new jobs to the community, and each of the markets we serve is a special part of the RaceTrac family. RaceTrac looks forward to serving future Collier County residents at the proposed intersection and throughout the County as we grow our brand through both new store growth and unparalleled guest experiences. 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict (PL20200000385) Exhibit V.E Public Facilities Level of Service Analysis October 13, 2020 Page 1 of 3 RTSBGG-20 Exhibit VE-r2.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com Provide the existing Level of Service Standard (LOS) and document the impact the proposed change will have on the following public facilities: The proposed Santa Barbara Boulevard/Golden Gate Parkway Commercial Subdistrict is a 6.4± acre parcel. The Subdistrict proposes up to 21,500 square feet of general retail and office on approximately 6.4± acres. The property is zoned Estates and currently permits single-family homes at 1 du/2.25 acre. The property would support up to 3 single family homes under the current plan designation. The property is currently developed with a church. The public facilities analysis evaluates the project impacts on potable Water, wastewater, drainage, parks, schools, roadways, fire/EMS, and solid waste. The source for the LOS information is the 2019 AUIR. Potable Water The property is located within the regional potable water service area of the Collier County Water-Sewer District. The County has existing plant treatment capacity of approximately 52.75 MGD and a planned plant capacity of 57.75 MGD (FY 2026). The proposed addition of 21,500 square feet of general commercial uses will not create any LOS issues in the 5-year planning horizon. This Project will have no impact on the potable water system and capacity is available in Collier County and no residential development is proposed in the sub-district, which is the basis for determining LOS impacts. The LOS for potable water is based on residential per capita. Non-residential development does not facilitate population growth. Sanitary Sewer The subject project is located within the Golden Gate City sub-regional wastewater service area of the Collier County Water-Sewer District with standards for Sanitary Sewer established in the Capital Improvement Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. This Project will have no impact on the Collier County Water-Sewer District’s wastewater treatment system. There are no residential uses proposed; therefore, there is not a LOS impact to the wastewater treatment system. The LOS for sanitary sewer - wastewater treatment is based on residential per capita. Non- residential development does not facilitate population growth. 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Arterial and Collector Roads Please refer to the Traffic Impact Statement for discussions of the project’s impact on level of service for arterial and collector roadways within the project’s radius of development influence. Drainage The County has adopted a LOS standard for private developments which requires development to occur consistent with water quantity and quality standards established in Ordinances 74-50, 90-10, 2001-27, and LDC Ordinance 2004-41, as may be amended. An environmental Resource Permit (ERP) issued by the South Florida Water Management District will be required, which has established criteria for the volume of water stored on site as well as the quality of the water which may be discharged from the site. The development within the subdistrict will be consistent with the County LOS standards. Solid Waste The adopted LOS for solid waste is two years of lined cell capacity at the previous 3-year average tons per year disposal rate and 10 years of permittable landfill capacity of the disposal rate. There are no current capacity issues, and none are anticipated through the year 2061. Existing: .007 lb/sf/day disposal rate 8,200 sf x .007 lb/sf/day = 57 lb/day x 365 = 20,805 lb/year Proposed: Retail/office 21,500 x 5 lbs/1,000 sq ft = 108 lbs/day x 365 = 39,238 lbs/year or 19.62 tons/year Current landfill capacity in 2019 is anticipated to be 18,062,901 tons. Total Permitted Landfill Capacity Remaining, 2019 13,547,175 Tons Required Permitted Landfill Capacity, 2019 2,675,006 Tons Total Lined Cell Capacity Remaining, 2019 575,500 Tons Source: Collier County 2019 AUIR Cal Recycle 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Parks: Community and Regional Parks impact fees are not assessed for commercial development or schools. No adverse impacts to Community or Regional Parks result from the amendment of the subdistrict. Schools School impact fees are not assessed for commercial development or schools. No adverse impacts to schools result from the creation of the subdistrict. Fire Control and EMS The proposed project lies within the Greater Naples Fire Rescue District. The North Collier Fire Rescue District and EMS - Station #70 is located at 4741 Golden Gate Parkway, which is approximately one mile from the property boundary. No significant impacts to Fire Control level of service are anticipated due to the proposed project. Estimated impact fees for EMS and fire would be determined at time of SDP based on each unit. Sheriff, Fire Protection and EMS Services location/address of facilities intended to serve the project are; Greater Naples Fire Rescue and EMS- Station #70 4741 Golden Gate Pkwy Collier County Sheriff's Office - District 2 (Golden Gate City Substation) 4707 Golden Gate Parkway 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial North Naples Station 40 Pine Ridge M.S. 0 4000'2000' SCALE: 1" = 4000' GradyMinor Civil Engineers ●Land Surveyors ●Planners ●Landscape Architects Cert. of Auth. EB 0005151 Cert. of Auth. LB 0005151 Business LC 26000266 Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, Florida 34134 Bonita Springs: 239.947.1144 ZZZ.GradyMinor.coP Fort Myers: 239.690.4380 SUBJECT PROPERTY 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- &ĞďƌƵĂƌǇϮϮ͕ϮϬϭϵs/͗ͲD/> <ĞůůǇWĞĂƌĐĞ фŬƉĞĂƌĐĞΛĐƉŚĐŽƌƉ͘ĐŽŵх WƌŽũĞĐƚŽŽƌĚŝŶĂƚŽƌ W,ŽƌƉ͘ ϮϮϭϲůƚĂŵŽŶƚǀĞ &ŽƌƚDǇĞƌƐ͕&>ϯϯϵϬϭ ^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗ tĂƚĞƌĂŶĚtĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚǇ WƌŽũĞĐƚ͗ ϯϬϬϭ^ĂŶƚĂĂƌďĂƌĂůǀĚ WĂƌĐĞůη͗ ϯϴϭϳϬϬϰϬϬϬϭ ĞĂƌ<ĞůůǇ͗ dŚĞ ƐƵďũĞĐƚƉƌŽũĞĐƚ ŝƐǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞ ŽůůŝĞƌ ŽƵŶƚǇ tĂƚĞƌͲ^ĞǁĞƌ ŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͛Ɛ ;t^Ϳ ǁĂƚĞƌ ĂŶĚ ǁĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƐĞƌǀŝĐĞĂƌĞĂƐ͘ dŚŝƐƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇĂůƌĞĂĚǇƌĞĐĞŝǀĞƐǁĂƚĞƌƐĞƌǀŝĐĞĨƌŽŵƚŚĞt^ǀŝĂĐŽŶŶĞĐƚŝŽŶƚŽƚŚĞĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐϴ͟ ǁĂƚĞƌŵĂŝŶĂĐƌŽƐƐ^ĂŶƚĂĂƌďĂƌĂůǀĚ͘ŶĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐϴ͟ǁĂƚĞƌŵĂŝŶŶĞĂƌƚŚĞƐŽƵƚŚĞĂƐƚƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ ĐŽƌŶĞƌ͕ǁŚŝĐŚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐĨŝƌĞƉƌŽƚĞĐƚŝŽŶƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƚŽƚŚĞĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚƐĐŚŽŽů͕ĂŶĚĂϭϮ͟ǁĂƚĞƌŵĂŝŶĂĐƌŽƐƐ 'ŽůĚĞŶ'ĂƚĞWĂƌŬǁĂǇĂƌĞĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞĨŽƌĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůĐŽŶŶĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ͕ĂƐŶĞĞĚĞĚ͘WŽƚĂďůĞǁĂƚĞƌŝƐ ĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞĨŽƌĚŽŵĞƐƚŝĐƵƐĞ͕ĨŝƌĞƉƌŽƚĞĐƚŝŽŶ͕ĂŶĚŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ͕ƐƵďũĞĐƚƚŽƚŚĞƉƌŽǀŝƐŝŽŶƐŽĨ>ϰ͘Ϭϯ͘Ϭϴ ͕ƚŚĞŽůůŝĞƌŽƵŶƚǇ/ƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶKƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞ;ϮϬϭϱͲϮϳͿ͕ĂŶĚŽƚŚĞƌĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞƌƵůĞƐĂŶĚƌĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐ͘ tĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƐĞƌǀŝĐĞŝƐƌĞĂĚŝůǇĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞƚŽƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚǀŝĂĂŶĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐϰ͟ĨŽƌĐĞŵĂŝŶĂĐƌŽƐƐ'ŽůĚĞŶ 'ĂƚĞWĂƌŬǁĂǇ͘dŚĞϮϬ͟ĨŽƌĐĞŵĂŝŶŽŶƚŚĞĞĂƐƚƐŝĚĞŽĨ^ĂŶƚĂĂƌďĂƌĂůǀĚĐŽŶŶĞĐƚƐƚŚĞƐŽƵƚŚĂŶĚ ŶŽƌƚŚ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ ĂƌĞĂƐ ĂŶĚ ŝƐ ŶŽƚ ŝŶ ĐŽŶƚŝŶƵŽƵƐ ŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ͘ dŚĞƌĞĨŽƌĞ͕ ŝƚ ŝƐ ŶŽƚ ĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞ ĨŽƌ ǁĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƚŽƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͘ ŽŶŶĞĐƚŝŽŶƐƚŽƚŚĞt^͛ƐǁĂƚĞƌĚŝƐƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶĂŶĚǁĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌĐŽůůĞĐƚŝŽŶͬƚƌĂŶƐŵŝƐƐŝŽŶƐǇƐƚĞŵƐ ǁŝůůďĞƉĞƌŵŝƚƚĞĚŽŶůǇŝŶƚŚĞůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶƐƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞĚŚĞƌĞŝŶ͕ŽƌŝŶĂƐƵƉĞƌƐĞĚŝŶŐƵƚŝůŝƚǇƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ ĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚǇůĞƚƚĞƌ͕ĂŶĚŽŶůǇĂĨƚĞƌƚŚĞ'DĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚZĞǀŝĞǁŝǀŝƐŝŽŶ͛ƐĂƉƉƌŽǀĂůŽĨŚǇĚƌĂƵůŝĐ ĐĂůĐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐƉƌĞƉĂƌĞĚďǇƚŚĞĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌ͛ƐŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŽĨZĞĐŽƌĚŝŶĂĐĐŽƌĚĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĞƐŝŐŶ ƌŝƚĞƌŝĂĨŽƵŶĚŝŶ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϭŽĨƚŚĞŽůůŝĞƌŽƵŶƚǇtĂƚĞƌͲ^ĞǁĞƌŝƐƚƌŝĐƚhƚŝůŝƚŝĞƐ^ƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐDĂŶƵĂů͘ WŽƚĂďůĞǁĂƚĞƌƐŽƵƌĐĞƉƌĞƐƐƵƌĞƐŚĂůůďĞǀĞƌŝĨŝĞĚďǇƚŚĞƌĞƐƵůƚƐŽĨĂĨŝƌĞĨůŽǁƚĞƐƚŶŽƚŽůĚĞƌƚŚĂŶƐŝǆ ŵŽŶƚŚƐ͕ ŝŶ ĂĐĐŽƌĚĂŶĐĞ ǁŝƚŚ ƐƵďƐĞĐƚŝŽŶ Ϯ͘Ϯ͘ϭ͕ ƉĂƌĂŐƌĂƉŚ ͘ WůĞĂƐĞ ĐŽŶƚĂĐƚ ŽƌŝŶŶĞ dƌƚĂŶ ;ŽƌŝŶŶĞ͘dƌƚĂŶΛĐŽůůŝĞƌĐŽƵŶƚǇĨů͘ŐŽǀͿ ƚŽ ĐŽŶĨŝƌŵ ĨŽƌĐĞ ŵĂŝŶ ĐŽŶŶĞĐƚŝŽŶ ƉƌĞƐƐƵƌĞ͘ ĚĞƋƵĂƚĞ ĐĂƉĂĐŝƚǇĨŽƌƚŚŝƐƉƌŽũĞĐƚŝƐŶŽƚŐƵĂƌĂŶƚĞĞĚƵŶƚŝůƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚƌĞĐĞŝǀĞƐĂĐŽŵŵŝƚŵĞŶƚĨŽƌƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ͘ Exhibit V.E3 Utility Availability Letter 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial ƉƌĞůŝŵŝŶĂƌǇƵƚŝůŝƚǇƉůĂŶŵƵƐƚďĞƌĞǀŝĞǁĞĚĂŶĚĚŝƐĐƵƐƐĞĚĂƚĂƉƌĞͲƐƵďŵŝƚƚĂůĐŽŶĨĞƌĞŶĐĞǁŝƚŚ ƌĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂƚŝǀĞƐŽĨƚŚĞWƵďůŝĐhƚŝůŝƚŝĞƐĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƚŚĞ'ƌŽǁƚŚDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ͕ĂƐ ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚďǇ^ĞĐ͘ϭϯϰͲϱϴ͕ƉĂƌĂŐƌĂƉŚ;ďͿ;ϮͿŽĨƚŚĞŽĚĞŽĨKƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞƐ͘dŚŝƐĐŽŶĨĞƌĞŶĐĞŵĂǇďĞ ĐŽŶĚƵĐƚĞĚďǇĞŵĂŝůĂƚƚŚĞĚŝƐĐƌĞƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞWƵďůŝĐhƚŝůŝƚŝĞƐĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ͘WůĞĂƐĞĐŽŶƚĂĐƚĂŶ ZŽŵĂŶ;ĂŶŝĞů͘ZŽŵĂŶΛĐŽůůŝĞƌĐŽƵŶƚǇĨů͘ŐŽǀͿĨŽƌĂƐƐŝƐƚĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚƚŚŝƐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚ͘ ^ĞĞƚŚĞďĞůŽǁ'/^ƐĐƌĞĞŶƐŚŽƚĂŶĚƚŚĞĂƚƚĂĐŚĞĚƌĞĐŽƌĚĚƌĂǁŝŶŐƐĨŽƌĂƉƉƌŽǆŝŵĂƚĞƵƚŝůŝƚǇůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶƐ͘ /ĨǇŽƵŚĂǀĞĂŶǇƋƵĞƐƚŝŽŶƐ͕ǇŽƵŵĂǇĐŽŶƚĂĐƚŵĞĂƚ;ϮϯϵͿϮϱϮͲϭϬϯϳ ŽƌƌŝĐ͘&ĞǇΛĐŽůůŝĞƌĐŽƵŶƚǇĨů͘ŐŽǀ͘ ZĞƐƉĞĐƚĨƵůůǇ͕ ƌŝĐ&ĞǇ͕W͕͘͘^ĞŶŝŽƌWƌŽũĞĐƚDĂŶĂŐĞƌ ͗ ^ƚĞǀĞDĞƐƐŶĞƌ͕ŝǀŝƐŝŽŶŝƌĞĐƚŽƌʹtĂƚĞƌ͕Whͬt͖ĞƚŚ:ŽŚŶƐƐĞŶ͕ŝǀŝƐŝŽŶŝƌĞĐƚŽƌʹ tĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌ͕Whͬtt͖ĞŶƵůůĞƌƚ͕/ŶƚĞƌŝŵWƌŝŶĐŝƉĂůWƌŽũĞĐƚDĂŶĂŐĞƌʹtĂƚĞƌ͕ WhͬWD͖DŝĐŚĂĞů^ƚĞǀĞŶƐ͕WƌŝŶĐŝƉĂůWƌŽũĞĐƚDĂŶĂŐĞƌʹtĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌ͕WhͬWD͖ ƌĂŝŐWĂũĞƌ͕WƌŝŶĐŝƉĂůWƌŽũĞĐƚDĂŶĂŐĞƌʹhƚŝůŝƚǇǆƉĂŶƐŝŽŶ͕WhͬWD͖ŽƌŝŶŶĞdƌƚĂŶ͕ WƌŽũĞĐƚDĂŶĂŐĞƌʹhƚŝůŝƚǇǆƉĂŶƐŝŽŶ͕WhͬWD͖ƌĞƚƚZŽƐĞŶďůƵŵ͕WƌŝŶĐŝƉĂůWƌŽũĞĐƚ DĂŶĂŐĞƌ͕'DͬZ͖ĂŶZŽŵĂŶ͕^ĞŶŝŽƌ^ŝƚĞWůĂŶƐZĞǀŝĞǁĞƌ͕'DͬZ͖hƚŝůŝƚǇ WůĂŶŶŝŶŐ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶфhƚŝůŝƚǇWůĂŶŶŝŶŐΛĐŽůůŝĞƌĐŽƵŶƚǇĨů͘ŐŽǀх 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial '/^^ĐƌĞĞŶ^ŚŽƚ9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.gPacket Pg. 341Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- 9.A.1.gPacket Pg. 342Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.gPacket Pg. 348Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- 9.A.1.gPacket Pg. 349Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.gPacket Pg. 351Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.gPacket Pg. 353Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.gPacket Pg. 358Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.gPacket Pg. 360Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.gPacket Pg. 376Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 401 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict (PL20200000385) Exhibit V.F Flood Zone April 15, 2020 Page 1 of 1 RTSBGG-20 Exhibit VF.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com Subject Property – Flood Zones X500, AH (10 & 10.5) and X 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 404 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict (PL20200000385) Exhibit V.G4 Authorization Forms April 27, 2020 Page 1 of 1 RTSBGG-20 Exhibit VG4.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com Letter of Authorization and Affidavit of Authorization 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 406 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 407 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 408 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 409 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 410 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial K>>/ZKhEdz'KsZEDEd 'ZKtd,DE'DEdWZdDEd ǁǁǁ͘ĐŽůůŝĞƌŐŽǀ͘ŶĞƚ ϮϴϬϬEKZd,,KZ^^,KZ/s EW>^͕&>KZ/ϯϰϭϬϰ ;ϮϯϵͿϮϱϮͲϮϰϬϬ&y ;ϮϯϵͿϮϱϮͲϱϳϮϰ ADDRESSING CHECKLIST 3OHDVHFRPSOHWHWKHIROORZLQJDQGHPDLOWR*0'B$GGUHVVLQJ#FROOLHUJRYQHWRUID[WRWKH2SHUDWLRQV'LYLVLRQ DWRUVXEPLWLQSHUVRQWRWKH$GGUHVVLQJ6HFWLRQDWWKHDERYHDGGUHVV)RUPPXVWEHVLJQHGE\ $GGUHVVLQJSHUVRQQHOSULRUWRSUHDSSOLFDWLRQPHHWLQJplease allow 3 days for processing. 1RW DOO LWHPV ZLOO DSSO\ WR HYHU\ SURMHFW ,WHPV LQbold type DUHUHTXLUHGFOLIO NUMBERS MUST BE PROVIDED.)RUPVROGHUWKDQPRQWKVZLOOUHTXLUHDGGLWLRQDOUHYLHZDQGDSSURYDOE\WKH$GGUHVVLQJ6HFWLRQ PETITION TYPE (Indicate type below, complete a separate Addressing Checklist for each Petition type) %/%ODVWLQJ3HUPLW %'%RDW'RFN([WHQVLRQ &DUQLYDO&LUFXV3HUPLW &8&RQGLWLRQDO8VH (;3([FDYDWLRQ3HUPLW )3)LQDO3ODW //$/RW/LQH$GMXVWPHQW 31&3URMHFW1DPH&KDQJH 33/3ODQV 3ODW5HYLHZ 3633UHOLPLQDU\6XEGLYLVLRQ3ODW 38'5H]RQH 5=6WDQGDUG5H]RQH 6'36LWH'HYHORSPHQW3ODQ 6'3$6'3$PHQGPHQW 6'3,,QVXEVWDQWLDO&KDQJHWR6'3 6,36LWH,PSURYHPHQW3ODQ 6,3,,QVXEVWDQWLDO&KDQJHWR6,3 6156WUHHW1DPH&KDQJH 61&6WUHHW1DPH&KDQJH±8QSODWWHG 7'57UDQVIHURI'HYHORSPHQW5LJKWV 9$9DULDQFH 9539HJHWDWLRQ5HPRYDO3HUPLW 956)39HJHWDWLRQ5HPRYDO 6LWH)LOO3HUPLW 27+(5 LEGAL DESCRIPTION RIVXEMHFWSURSHUW\RUSURSHUWLHV(copy of lengthy description may be attached) FOLIO (Property ID) NUMBER(s)RIDERYH(attach to, or associate with, legal description if more than one) 675((7$''5(66RU$''5(66(6(as applicable, if already assigned) 352326('675((71$0(6(if applicable) 6,7('(9(/230(173/$1180%(5(for existing projects/sites only) 1 LOCATION MAP PXVWEHDWWDFKHGVKRZLQJH[DFWORFDWLRQRISURMHFWVLWHLQUHODWLRQWRQHDUHVWSXEOLFURDGULJKW RIZD\ 352326('352-(&71$0((if applicable) 6'3RU$5RU3/ 6859(<FRS\QHHGHGRQO\IRUXQSODWWHGSURSHUWLHV &855(17352-(&71$0((if applicable) S29 T49 R26 PUDZ- PL20180003185 Exhibit V.G5 ■GMPA See attached 38170040001 3001 Santa Barbara Blvd 3001 Santa Barbara CPUD 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 411 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial K>>/ZKhEdz'KsZEDEd 'ZKtd,DE'DEdWZdDEd ǁǁǁ͘ĐŽůůŝĞƌŐŽǀ͘ŶĞƚ ϮϴϬϬEKZd,,KZ^^,KZ/s EW>^͕&>KZ/ϯϰϭϬϰ ;ϮϯϵͿϮϱϮͲϮϰϬϬ&y ;ϮϯϵͿϮϱϮͲϱϳϮϰ 3OHDVH5HWXUQ$SSURYHG&KHFNOLVW%\(PDLO3HUVRQDOO\SLFNHGXS ASSOLFDQW1DPH 6LJQDWXUHRQ$GGUHVVLQJ&KHFNOLVWGRHVQRWFRQVWLWXWH3URMHFWDQGRU6WUHHW1DPH DSSURYDODQGLVVXEMHFWWRIXUWKHUUHYLHZE\WKH2SHUDWLRQV'LYLVLRQ FOR STAFF USE ONLY FROLR Number Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number )ROLR1XPEHU )ROLR1XPEHU Approved by: Date: Updated by: Date: IF OLDER THAN 6 MONTHS, FORM MUST BE UPDATED OR NEW FORM SUBMITTED 2 )D[ (PDLO)D[3KRQH 3URMHFWRUGHYHORSPHQWQDPHVSURSRVHGIRURUDOUHDG\DSSHDULQJLQFRQGRPLQLXPGRFXPHQWVLIDSSOLFDWLRQ LQGLFDWHZKHWKHUSURSRVHGRUH[LVWLQJ 38170040001 03/16/2020 ■ Sharon Umpenhour 239-947-1144 sumpenhour@gradyminor.com 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 412 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 413 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial &ROOLHU&RXQW\3URSHUW\$SSUDLVHU3URSHUW\6XPPDU\ 3DUFHO1R 6LWH$GGUHVV 'LVFODLPHU 6$17$%$5%$5$%/9' 6LWH&LW\1$3/(6 6LWH=RQH 1RWH 1DPH$GGUHVV*22':,//,1'8672)6:)/,1& $771$&&2817,1* 7,&(67 &LW\)2570<(56 6WDWH )/=LS 0DS1R 6WUDS1R 6HFWLRQ 7RZQVKLS 5DQJH $FUHV£ (VWLPDWHG % % /HJDO *2/'(1*$7((6781,775$1'7+(1)72)75/(667+$73257,21$6'(6&,1253*$1'/(667+$73257,21$6'(6&,1253* 0LOODJH$UHD0LOODJH5DWHV£ &DOFXODWLRQV 6XE&RQGR *2/'(1*$7((6781,76FKRRO 2WKHU 7RWDO 8VH&RGH&+85&+(6 /DWHVW6DOHV+LVWRU\ 1RW DOO6DOHVDUHOLVWHGGXHWR&RQILGHQWLDOLW\ 'DWH %RRN3DJH $PRXQW £&HUWLILHG7D[5ROO 6XEMHFW WR&KDQJH /DQG9DOXH ſʫƀ,PSURYHG9DOXH ſʰƀ0DUNHW9DOXH ſʰƀ$VVHVVHG9DOXH ſʰƀ6FKRRO7D[DEOH9DOXH ſʰƀ7D[DEOH9DOXH ,IDOO9DOXHVVKRZQDERYHHTXDOWKLVSDUFHOZDVFUHDWHGDIWHUWKH)LQDO7D[5ROO 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 414 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial &ROOLHU&RXQW\3URSHUW\$SSUDLVHU3URSHUW\$HULDO 3DUFHO1R 6LWH$GGUHVV 'LVFODLPHU 6$17$%$5%$5$%/9' 6LWH&LW\1$3/(6 6LWH=RQH 1RWH 2SHQ*,6LQD1HZ:LQGRZZLWK0RUH)HDWXUHV 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Pre-Application Meeting Notes Petition Type: PL20200000385 (GMPA) & PL20200000386 (PUDZ) Date and Time: March 18, 2020 1:30 PM-3:30 PM. Conf. Rm. 609-610 via teleconference Assigned Planners: Corby Schmidt (GMPA) & Nancy Gundlach (PUDZ) Project Information Project Name: 3001 SB CPUD PL #: PL20200000385 & PL20200000386 Property ID #: 38170040001 Current Zoning: E-Estates and partially Corridor Management Overlay, with PU for church Project Address: SW corner of Golden Gate Parkway & Santa Barbara Blvd., in 29-49-26 Existing Application Name: site is developed with a church (petition PU-82-23-C, Res. No. 82-192, 11/9/82 BCC) Applicant: Race Trac Agent Name: D. Wayne Arnold, Q. Grady Minor Property Owner: per PAO GIS, owner: Goodwill Industries of SW Florida, Inc. Meeting Notes As of 10/16/2017 all Zoning applications have revised applications, and your associated Application is included in your notes; additionally a *new Property Ownership Disclosure Form is required for all applications. A copy of this new form is included in your pre-app Note – link is https://www.colliergov.net/Home/ShowDocument?id=75093. POST PRE-APP COMMENTS: **$03ࢼ8UEDQ*ROGHQ*DWH(VWDWHV6XE -Element (UGGESE) Future Land Use Map and provisions found in the Land Use Designation Description Section of this Sub-Element. UGGESE FLUM Designation is Estates Mixed Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict. Project would allow redevelopment of approx. 6.3 acres of church site for commercial uses. No commercial uses currently. Small scale GMPA to GGAMP-UGGESE would establish a new commercial 6XEGLVWULFWࢼWREHVXEPLWWHGDQGUHYLHZHGIRUWUDQVPLWWDO DG RStion, with a companion PUDZ. Specific end uses identified, with commercial intensity proposed as “C-4 PLUS”, ranging high enough to include eating establishments, gas stations and convenience stores or other operations dispensing fuel, and car washes. Exhibit V.G6 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subject Property History Includes: (1) GGAMP Re-study circa 2001-2002 with no recommended designation change; (2) private sector GMPA petition CP-2008-3 for 20.71 acres proposing Golden Gate Parkway Mixed- Use Subdistrict to allow max. of 74 DUs, max. of 240 senior housing units – with res’l/sr. hsg conversion ratio, and max of 60,000 sq. ft. of C-1 thru C-3 uses with some prohibitions – petition withdrawn; (2.b) private sector GMPA petition CPSS-2011-2, for (property north, across Golden Gate Parkway) Conditional Uses in the Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict :HVWLQ**$03ࢼ On Hold while Applicant/Agent participated in GGAMP Re-Study effort » [During public workshops, a majority of participants felt there wasn’t a need for additional commercial areas; but recognized a need and opportunity for redevelopment of the existing areas to spur economic development.]. (3) GGAMP Re-study in 2016-2019 with initial white paper findings reporting community support for major intersections such as this one allowing “E” CUs (churches and other places of worship; social or fraternal organizations, childcare centers, schools, group care facilities, essential services, hospitals, etc.). (4) GGAMP Re-study culminates in adoption of the Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element in September 2019. Commercial rezonings are further prohibited along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Rd. and Santa Barbara Blvd., and new commercial uses from properties abutting streets accessing the Parkway within the above-defined segment. Yes, Comprehensive Planning issues present, with introducing a commercial subdistrict and establishing commercial uses; Agent notified of the need to address, as applicable: x Compliance with the GGAMP-UGGESE /FLUM (Estates Mixed Use District, (new commercial) Subdistrict); [PUDZ] x Compliance with FLUE Objective 5 and its applicable policies, esp. s/s 5.3, 5.6 (GMP consistency clause; LDC compatibility & complementary clause); [GMPA & PUDZ] x Compliance with FLUE Objective 7 and its applicable policies 7.1 through 7.4 (Toward Better Places – Community Character Plan); [PUDZ] Provide proper data & analysis for the introduction of commercial land uses; x The market study is needed in attempt to establish demand for commercial uses. These studies, even in their most basic form, include data on the: supply of land in the (market) area already having a GGAMP Sub-Element FLUM or FLUE designation allowing the desired uses; supply of land in the (market) area already having a zoning designation allowing the desired uses; inventory of existing commercial uses (acreage & floor area) in the (market) area; and, a professional acceptable analysis of the demand remaining for the desired uses. x Need for the designation change – data and analysis, e.g. market demand study for commercial uses is to demonstrate the change is warranted, and that additional inventory [quantity] of the requested uses is needed; Too often, the data only demonstrates the petition site is viable for the proposed uses (“build it & they will come”) rather than demonstrate there is a need for a new or expanded GMP provision to provide for the proposed uses, and that the need is at this 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 417 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial specific location; The data should be specific to the proposed land uses, proposed trade or service area, persons per household in subject area, etc., as applicable; Market demand studies should develop scenarios to explain how the subject property will compete with other ‘like areas’ in or near the market, or trade, area; Market demand studies should also gauge the amount of vacant units/square footage/leasable area of “like area” nodes in the market area, such as within each Mixed Use Activity Center (MUAC), each Estates Neighborhood Center, each Subdistrict, and so on – acknowledging the premise that vacancies and vacancy rates are valid indicators for determining need/demand/support. Address sections Chapter 163.3167(9), 163.3177, and 163.3184, Florida Statutes; Note particularly the requirement to provide appropriate data and analyses [the local government deems appropriate] to demonstrate the amendment is needed. Prepare separate narratives to address all impacts to the surrounding area [to accompany both GMPA & PUDZ application materials]. Give particular attention to other Subdistrict and Overlay designations in this area, including those that presently serve as buffers between non-residential and residential land uses; with their limited, transitional land uses (professional offices, low-intensity commercial, personal services, etc.) especially Transitional Uses in the Conditional Uses Subdistrict, in the Sub-Element being amended and the other Sub-Element and Elements of the GMP relevant to the petition. Explain how the new Subdistrict effects the purposes and intents, etc. of each of these surrounding designations. Explain how the new (Subdistrict- and PUD-allowed) development and uses effect the existing and potential development and uses in these designations, including, but not limited to: x Appropriateness of uses/compatibility with surrounding area, and x Impact or unintended consequences on surrounding properties – addressing whether it will make them more, or less, developable under their present FLUM designation? Will it create a domino effect leading to future designation changes on the surrounding properties? Follow the established format of the GGAMP-UGGESE for the text exhibit “to preserve the internal consistency” of the GMP and include: x A listing of new subdistrict name under Policy 1.1.4; x Proposed subdistrict provisions; and, x A listing of new subdistrict map under List of Maps. Follow the established format of the GGAMP-UGGESE for the map exhibits “to preserve the internal consistency” of the GMP and include: x A new subdistrict Inset Map; and, x An amended Urban Golden Gate Estates area-wide FLUM. Staff notes: This GMPA application will be for a small-scale plan amendment. The small-scale GMP amendment procedure requires an Adoption phase only per Florida Statute, while the procedure required of the companion CU modification places it in the same schedule.** For a submitted application, after the sufficiency review process is complete [outside CityView] and the application package is deemed sufficient, an electronic version of the entire submittal is needed, 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 418 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial preferably in PDF format, preferably on a CD. The County has instituted an electronic (paperless) agenda process for the Board of County Commissioners’ hearings.** All Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) activities and reviews are arranged directly with the Comprehensive Planning staff/the assigned Project Coordinator; these activities include: reviewing/approving the draft notification to surrounding property owners; reviewing/approving the draft newspaper advertisement; reviewing/approving/ coordinating proposed NIM meeting dates, times and locations; the draft NIM notification to surrounding property owners; accepting/filing applicant- prepared Affidavit of Notification (from NDN), posted Public Hearing sign photograph, and, NIM transcript/minutes/notes and clearly audible in its entirety, an audio/video recording, plus 3 flash drives containing the full, clear NIM audio recording.** The GMPA pre-application conference fee is $500.00, $9,000.00 for a small-scale application, which is non-refundable, plus a proportionate share of the legal advertising costs; for small-scale applications. There are two (2) hearings held – one (1) each conducted in front of the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) and Board of County Commissioners (BCC); one (1), one-quarter page ad is placed in the Naples Daily News prior to CCPC hearing, and two (2) prior to BCC hearing. At present, the total cost for the 3 ads is approximately $3,700.00. The estimated legal advertising costs will be provided to each applicant and payment will be required prior to advertising for any hearings.** Applications for a small-scale plan amendment may be submitted and processed at any time; are limited to parcels less than or equal to 10 acres in size; further, the map amendment cannot result in a conflict between the map and text – there can be no internal inconsistency in the GMP. Be sure of consistency/conformity/harmony with other Goals, Objectives, Policies (GOPs) and provisions in the Sub-Element being amended and the other Sub-Element and Elements of the GMP relevant to the petition, as well as any other applicable regulations (e.g. specific LDC provisions); fully explain furtherance of existing GOPs relevant to the petition, and of any other plans or designations which are applicable or relevant to the petition (e.g. a redevelopment plan, corridor management plan, etc.).** All studies and analyses are to include the raw data used to support their conclusions, as copies from source documents, attachments or appendices thereto, in order to facilitate a thorough substantive review.** It is important to organize the amendment package carefully; be sure all exhibits are labeled consistently, are in the proper order, and are referenced fully/correctly on the pages of the application. Be sure all mapping clearly identifies the subject site, includes North arrow and scale, and source. A petition narrative is often helpful, and in this instance, recommended to provide the thorough explanation needed. For corporate ownership, it is not acceptable to only list the corporation name; in some instances, property is owned by a corporation that in turn is comprised of other corporations; it is necessary to provide a list of individuals as officers or stockholders of the corporation(s) for purposes of full disclosure; the objective of disclosure is to reveal the individuals with an interest in the property (including seeing if any staff or public officials are included).** For a submitted petition, after the sufficiency review process is complete [outside CityView] and the petition package is deemed sufficient, an electronic version of the entire submittal is needed, preferably in PDF format, preferably on a CD. The County has instituted an electronic (paperless) agenda process for the Board of County Commissioners’ hearings.** 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 419 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Note: ** denotes staff information / clarification provided post-pre-application conference. The expectation of staff support for these applications or recommendations for approval are not implied or expressed by comments made during this conference. Disclaimer: Information provided by staff to applicant during the Pre-Application Meeting is based on the best available data at the time of the meeting and may not fully inform the applicant of issues that could arise during the process. The Administrative Code and LDC dictates the regulations which all applications must satisfy. Any checklists provided of required data for an application may not fully outline what is needed. It is the applicant’s responsibility to provide all required data. Notes from this mtg. will be/have been scanned & will be/are foldered in: G:\CDES Planning Services\Comprehensive\COMP PLANNING GMP DATA\Comp Plan Amendments\2020 Cycles & Smalls\pre-app meetings in 2020\Pre-App SB 3001 duo of March 18 2020. These notes will also be/have also been uploaded into CityView and will be/are visible there. 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 420 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 421 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. Ph. 239-947-1144 Fax. 239-947-0375 3800 Via Del Rey EB 0005151 LB 0005151 LC 26000266 Bonita Springs, FL 34134 www.gradyminor.com Project Location Map NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING Petition PL20200000385 Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict and Petition PL20200000386 3001 SB CPUD Rezone A Neighborhood Information Meeting hosted by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. and Richard D. Yovanovich of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., representing RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc. (Applicant) will be held on Thursday, August 13, 2020, 5:30 pm at Parkway Life Church, 5975 Golden Gate Pkwy, Naples, FL 34116. Individuals who would like to participate remotely, should contact Sharon Umpenhour at 239-947-1144 or sumpenhour@gradyminor.com. Project information is posted online at www.gradyminor.com/planning. RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc. has submitted formal applications to Collier County, seeking approval of a Small-Scale Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) and Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) rezone. The GMPA proposes to create a new subdistrict in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub- Element to allow up to 21,500 square feet of general commercial uses in the subdistrict and rezone the property from the E, Estates Zoning District to CPUD Zoning District. The subject property (Parcel Number 38170040001) is comprised of approximately 6.4± acres, located on the Southwest quadrant of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard in Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. If you are unable to attend the meeting or have questions or comments, please contact Sharon Umpenhour with Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, Florida 34134. Email: sumpenhour@gradyminor.com, phone: 239-947-1144, fax: 239-947-0375. The Neighborhood Information Meeting is for informational purposes only, it is not a public hearing. 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 422 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 1NAME1 NAME2 NAME3 NAME4 NAME5 NAME6 LEGAL1 LEGAL2 LEGAL3 LEGAL4 FOLIO2772 SANTA BARBARA LLC 999 VANDERBILT BEACH RD #200NAPLES, FL 34108---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 6 BLK 228 BEG AT PERM REF MONU ON E LI OF SANTA BARBARA BLVD & W LI OF BLK 228, RUN N 0DEG E 11.11 363266800002772 SANTA BARBARA LLC 999 VANDERBILT BEACH RD #200NAPLES, FL 34108---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 6 BLK 228 BEG PERM REF MON'T ON E LI SANTA BARBARA BLVD & W LI OF BLK 228 N 0 DEG E 11.11 FT, 38.52 FT 363266900035472 GOLDEN GATE PKWY TRUST 9297 GLENFOREST DRNAPLES, FL 34120---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 230 LOT 7 & N 10FT OF ALLEY ADJ TO S LI OF LOT 7 VACATED BY OR 2040 PG 177, LESS THAT PART OF 36430280008ABLE ACADEMY INC 5860 GOLDEN GATE PKWYNAPLES, FL 34116---0 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 E 150FT OF TR 7638166640004ALVAREZ, ANA C MARIO ALEJANDRO ALVAREZ 5720 PAINTED LEAF LN NAPLES, FL 34116---0 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 W 150FT OF TR 9938168880008ALVAREZ-PEREZ, YAMIRLA CARLOS J HERNANDEZ-RODRIGUEZ 3018 55TH TER SW NAPLES, FL 34116---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 268 LOT 636458240004ALYMOV, VADIM 5825 GOLDEN GATE PKWYNAPLES, FL 34116---7458 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 E 180FT OF TR 8238167080003AMELUNGE, G ADOLFO APONTE DE APONTE CAROLA MENDEZ 5646 GREENS DR ALLENTOWN, PA 18106---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 269 LOT 19 OR 1876 PG 23536459680003AMERICAN PROPERTIES GROUP LLC 1205 PIPER BLVD #101NAPLES, FL 34110---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 230 LOT 28 & THAT PORTION OF VACA- TED ALLEY ADJ TO N LI OF LOT 28 VACATED BY OR 2035 PG 1367 36431120002AQUINO, RAMIRO E JIMENEZ 3001 54TH LANE SWNAPLES, FL 34116---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 267 LOT 1636457840007ARIAS, FELIPE 2755 55TH ST SWNAPLES, FL 34116---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 6 BLK 227 LOT 2436326600006AZWOIR, NAZININA F 5770 PAINTED LEAF LANENAPLES, FL 34116---0 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 W 180FT OF TR 90 OR 1257 PG 92938168120001BEL, ANDRES 5775 GOLDEN GATE PKWYNAPLES, FL 34116---0 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 E 75FT OF W 180FT OF TR 9138168240004BIRSA, SERGIO & MARIAN E 2881 SANTA BARBARA BLVDNAPLES, FL 34116---7431 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 S 180FT OF TR 110 OR 1837 PG 232838169840005BRAVO, MAYRA 3054 55TH TER SWNAPLES, FL 34116---8034 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 268 LOT 836458320005BREINING, JENNIFER 5501 29TH PL SWNAPLES, FL 34116---8058 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 230 LOT 22 & S 10FT OF ALLEY ADJ TO N LI OF LOT 22 VACATED BY OR 2035 PG 1367 36430880000BRICENO, EDGARD E & MYRIAM G 3211 SANTA BARBARA BLVDNAPLES, FL 34116---7424 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 N 180FT OF TR 11738170240005BROWN, ERIC ALDEN 5700 PAINTED LEAF LANENAPLES, FL 34106---7449 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 E 180FT OF TR 9938168920007BRYANT, SANDRA F 2995 55TH TER SWNAPLES, FL 34116---8031 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 269 LOT 1536459520008CAJUSTE, WISLY & MERCE 3036 55TH TER SWNAPLES, FL 34116---8034 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 268 LOT 736458280006CAPRICORNIO INVESTMENT LLC 15275 COLLIER BLVD #201 / 269NAPLES, FL 34119---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 269 LOT 836459240003CAPRICORNIO INVESTMENT LLC 15275 COLLIER BLVD #201 / 269NAPLES, FL 34119---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 269 LOT 1036459320004CAPRICORNIO INVESTMENT LLC 15275 COLLIER BLVD #201 / 269NAPLES, FL 34119---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 269 LOT 1136459360006CAPRICORNIO INVESTMENT LLC 15275 COLLIER BLVD #201/269NAPLES, FL 34119---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 269 LOT 936459280005CARMONA, MARCELA G JAVIER CORNELIO 2996 55TH TER SW NAPLES, FL 34116---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 268 LOT 436458160003CHAPMAN, BEVERLY J 5731 GOLDEN GATE PKWYNAPLES, FL 34116---7460 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 W 150FT OF TR 9838168840006CHAVARRIAGA & MARIN REV TRUST 5911 STAR GRASS LANENAPLES, FL 34116---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 269 LOT 436459080001CIROU, STEVEN W & TALITHA C E 2915 SANTA BARBARA BLVDNAPLES, FL 34116---7429 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 N 180FT OF TR 11138169920006COLGAN, MARK & SUSAN 5721 ENGLISH OAKS LANENAPLES, FL 34119---0 SANTA BARBARA CLUB A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 772580280006COLGAN, MARK C & SUSAN 5721 ENGLISH OAKS LANENAPLES, FL 34119---0 SANTA BARBARA CLUB A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 672580240004COLLIER CHILD CARE RESOURCES INC 2335 TAMIAMI TRL N STE 504 NAPLES, FL 34103---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 269 LOTS 1, 2 & 3 OR 1353 PGS 2350 -2353, LESS THAT PORTION OF R/W PER OR 4088 PG 85 36458960009COLLIER CNTY TECM/ROW 2885 HORSESHOE DR SNAPLES, FL 34104---6130 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 230 LOT 2 & N 10FT OF ALLEY ADJ TO S LI OF LOT 2 VACATED BY OR 2040 PG 177 LESS A PORTION OF 36430080004COLLIER CNTY TECM/ROW 2885 HORSESHOE DR SNAPLES, FL 34104---6130 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 230 LOT 3 & N 10FT OF ALLEY ADJ TO S LI OF LOT 3 VACATED BY OR 2040 PG 177 LESS A PORTION OF 36430120003COLLIER CNTY TECM/ROW 2885 HORSESHOE DR SNAPLES, FL 34104---6130 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 230 LOT 4 & N 10FT OF ALLEY ADJ T0 S LI OF LOT 4 VACATED BY OR 2040 PG 177 LESS A PORTION OF 36430160005COLLIER CNTY TECM/ROW 2885 HORSESHOE DR SNAPLES, FL 34104---6130 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 230 LOT 5 & N 10FT OF ALLEY ADJ TO S LI OF LOT 5 VACATED BY OR 2040 PG 177 LESS A PORTION OF 36430200004COLLIER CNTY TECM/ROW 2885 HORSESHOE DR SNAPLES, FL 34104---6130 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 230 LOT 6 & N 10FT OF ALLEY ADJ TO S LI OF LOT 6 VACATED BY OR 2040 PG 177 LESS A PORTION OF 36430240006COLLIER CNTY TECM/ROW 2885 HORSESHOE DR SNAPLES, FL 34104---6130 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 230 LOT 1 & N 10FT OF ALLEY ADJ TO S LI OF LOT 1 VACATED BY OR 2040 PG 177 LESS A PORTION OF 36430040002CRUZ, JOSE & MILDRED PO BOX 471NAPLES, FL 34106---471 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 267 LOT 20 OR 1472 PG 235836458000008DAYE, MICHAEL R & SUSAN F 3019 55TH TER SWNAPLES, FL 34116---8033 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 269 LOT 17 OR 2066 PG 64336459600009DELANY, THOMAS H DEBBIE A KOEHLER 2969 54TH LN SW NAPLES, FL 34116---8023 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 267 LOT 19 OR 1435 PG 177236457960000DESIR, SUZE 3072 55TH TER SWNAPLES, FL 34116---8034 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 268 LOT 936458360007DIETRICH TR, FRED J & LEEANN DIETRICH FAMILY TRUST UTD 6/26/06 3150 58TH ST SW NAPLES, FL 34116---7406 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 S 180FT OF TR 9438168520009DISARRO, ANTHONY J & CATHERINE 3110 58TH ST SWNAPLES, FL 34116---7406 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 N 180FT OF TR 93 OR 1293 PG 178038168360007DISARRO, NICOLA & JEAN 5724 GOLDEN GATE PKWYNAPLES, FL 34116---7461 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 E 105 FT OF W 225FT OF TR 9738168760005DORIA, REYNALDO & MARY J PO BOX 8262NAPLES, FL 34101---8262 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 N 150FT OF TR 78 OR 759 PG 121538166840008ERICKSON, LOUIS & BARBARA S 1025 CAPRI DRNAPLES, FL 34103---2540 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 268 LOT 536458200002EXANTUS, KERLANDE GILNICK VYLCIN 3019 54TH LANE SW NAPLES, FL 34116---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 267 LOT 15 OR 525 PG 32236457800005FERNANDEZ, YUDITH B 5560 29TH PL SWNAPLES, FL 34116---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 269 LOT 1236459400005FL-GA DISTRICT OF THE LUTHERAN CHURCH-MISSOURI SYNOD 5850 T G LEE BLVD STE 500 ORLANDO, FL 32789---0 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 TR 81 OR 1380 PG 40138167040001FLORA B ESPINOSA TRUST 3131 58TH ST SWNAPLES, FL 34116---7405 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 N 165FT OF TR 7738166721004FLORA B ESPINOSA TRUST 3131 58TH ST SWNAPLES, FL 34116---7405 GOLDEN GATE ESTATES UNIT #30 TRACT 77 LOT 138170284058FORESYTH, BERTRAM L & DOROTHY 3073 55TH TER SWNAPLES, FL 34116---8033 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 269 LOT 20 OR 1548 PG 152036459720002GALAN, JUAN EDUARDO C/O HECTOR PROSPERI 3550 ZANZIBAR WAY NAPLES, FL 34119---1619 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 268 LOT 136458040000GGC PLAZA INV LLC 2055 TRADE CENTER WAYNAPLES, FL 34109---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 6 BLK 219 LOTS 29, 30, 31 & S 10FT OF ALLEY ADJ TO N LINE VACATED BY RES 95-639 IN OR 2126 PG 1968 36320000000GHANSHYAMBHAI M PATEL REVOCABLE TRUST 3091 55TH TERR SW NAPLES, FL 34116---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 269 LOT 1636459560000GILHOOLEY, GWYNNETH 5470 29TH PL SWNAPLES, FL 34116---8063 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 231 LOT 13 OR 715 PG 72036431640003GILHOOLEY, JEROME JOHN 23122 SW 113TH PLMAIMI, FL 33170---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 231 LOT 1236431600001GONZALEZ, DIOSDADO A & OLGA C 3115 55TH TER SWNAPLES, FL 34116---8035 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 269 LOT 23 OR 1787 PG 83336459840005GOODWILL INDUST OF SW FL INC ATTN: ACCOUNTING 5100 TICE ST FORT MYERS, FL 33905---0 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 TR 113 AND THE N 150FT OF TR 114, LESS THAT PORTION AS DESC IN OR 3476 PG 1315 AND LESS THAT 38170040001GRAZIANI, RONEN & LEEANNE W 410 29TH ST NWNAPLES, FL 34120---0 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 N 150FT OF TR 11038169880007GULAPA, ROLAND E & MARY B 3140 58TH ST SWNAPLES, FL 34116---7406 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 N 150FT OF TR 9438168480000GUTIERREZ, SILFREDO SANDRA LORENZO 3131 55TH TER SW NAPLES, FL 34116---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 269 LOT 2436459880007GUZMAN, MAYRA 211 17TH ST SWNAPLES, FL 34117---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 267 LOT 1836457920008HAMILTON, ORRINGTON TRACIA A WILLIAMS HAMILTON 5470 16TH PL SW # 105 NAPLES, FL 34116---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 6 BLK 227 LOTS 1 + 236325720000HOOD, COTRENIA DAVENPORT RICHARD HOOD 5761 GOLDEN GATE PKWY NAPLES, FL 34116---0 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 E 150FT OF TR 9138168160003HUFF, MICHAEL P NAZININA F AZWOIR 5770 PAINTED LEAF LANE NAPLES, FL 34116---0 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 E 150FT OF TR 90 OR 734 PG 194538168080002ISME, FRITZLY 3054 54TH LN SWNAPLES, FL 34116---8026 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 231 LOT 736431400007J M & M L CERNECK TRUST CIROU, STEVEN W=& TALITHA C E 2915 SANTA BARBARA BLVD NAPLES, FL 34116---0 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 S 150FT OF TR 11138169960008JFD NAPLES LLC 11693 BALD EAGLE WAYNAPLES, FL 34120---4320 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 269 LOT 7 OR 1410 PG 236459200001JOSEPH A ROSIN REV TRUST % CHRIS HENNING III 555 SKOKIE BLVD #350 NORTHBROOK, IL 60062---0 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 TR 11238170000009K & R HOMETECH LLC 131 25TH ST SWNAPLES, FL 34117---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 6 BLK 226 LOT 2036325680001KIRKLAND, DIANA L 2748 SANTA BARBARA BLVD # 8NAPLES, FL 34116---0 SANTA BARBARA CLUB A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 872580320005LAGEMAN, CHAR P 5496 28TH AVE SWNAPLES, FL 34116---7516 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 6 BLK 219 LOT 1 AND N 10FT OF ALLEY ADJ TO S LINE OF LOT 1 VACATED BY RES 95-639 IN OR 2126 PG 1968 36318920008LAGUNAS, BALTAZAR 5547 29TH PL SWNAPLES, FL 34116---8058 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 230 LOT 25 & S 10FT OF ALLEY ADJ TO N LI OF LOT 25 VACATED BY OR 2035 PG 1367 36431000009LORA-TREJO, EZEQUIEL MARIA A MARTINEZ-SANCHEZ 2971 55TH TER SW NAPLES, FL 34116---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 269 LOT 1336459440007MALIK, MOHAMMED WAQAS 3549 CANOPY CIRCLENAPLES, FL 34120---0 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 W 180FT OF TR 9238168280006MARK, CHRISTOPHER 5740 GOLDEN GATE PKWYNAPLES, FL 34116---0 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 E150FT OF TR 9238168320005Notice: 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: PL20200000386 & PL20200000385 | Buffer: 1000' | Date: 6/30/2020 | Site Location: 38170040001Copy of POList_1000_PL20200000386-PL20200000385.xls9.A.1.gPacket Pg. 423Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 2MARTIN, JEANETTE 3191 SANTA BARBARA BLVDNAPLES, FL 34116---7424 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 S 180FT OF TR 11638170160004MARTINEZ, ANTONIO MARIA RIVERO 2190 53RD ST SW NAPLES, FL 34116---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 6 BLK 226 LOT 336325000005MC DONALD, ROBIN M 3185 58TH ST SWNAPLES, FL 34116---7405 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 S 180FT OF TR 7838166760007MCCANNA, CYNTHIA JEAN 3037 55TH TER SWNAPLES, FL 34116---8033 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 269 LOT 1836459640001METZGER, MARIA T 3000 54TH LN SWNAPLES, FL 34116---8026 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 231 LOT 1036431520000MG3 NAPLES SCHOOL LLC 2980 NE 207TH ST SUITE 603AVENTURA, FL 33180---0 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 S 180FT OF TR 114 + ALL TR 115 + N 150FT OF TR 116 38170120002MIGUEL, LEONARDO 5531 29TH PL SWNAPLES, FL 34116---8058 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 230 LOT 24 & S 10FT OF ALLEY ADJ TO N LI OF LOT 24 VACATED BY OR 2035 PG 1367 36430960001MOLINA, DAVID 2717 55TH TER SWNAPLES, FL 34116---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 6 BLK 226 LOT 1836325600007MORRIS JR, CHARLES ARTHUR 3077 54TH LANE S WNAPLES, FL 34116---8025 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 267 LOT 12 OR 1819 PG 42436457680005NAGAJ, ROBERT G 5497 29TH PL SWNAPLES, FL 34116---8061 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 230 LOT 21 & S 10FT OF ALLEY ADJ TO N LI OF LOT 21 VACATED BY OR 2035 PG 1367 36430840008NAPLES BRIDGE CENTER INC 5865 GOLDEN GATE PKWYNAPLES, FL 34116---7458 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 E 150FT OF TR 75 AND W 150FT OF TR 8238166600002NAPLES VENTURE III LLC 555 SKOKIE BLVD STE 350NORTHBROOK, IL 60062---0 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 E 180FT OF TR 98 OR 1408 PG 120538168800004NESTOR-DISARRO, WILLIAM P 5730 GOLDEN GATE PKWYNAPLES, FL 34116---0 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 W 120 FT OF TR 9738168680004NORBRUN, GUERLINE 3037 54TH LN SWNAPLES, FL 34116---8025 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 267 LOT 1436457760006ORJUELA, MARIA 2983 55TH TER SW UNIT BNAPLES, FL 34116---8011 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 269 LOT 1436459480009OZTURK, SEBIHA 6940 GOLDEN GATE PKWYNAPLES, FL 34105---0 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 S 75FT OF TR 9338168400006PAIS, ANTONIO MARLENE RODRIGUEZ 3114 55TH TER SW NAPLES, FL 34116---8036 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 268 LOT 1236458480000PATEL, GHANSHYAM 3091 55TH TER SWNAPLES, FL 34116---8033 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 269 LOT 2136459760004PATEL, GHANSHYAM 3091 55TH TER SWNAPLES, FL 34116---8033 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 269 LOT 2236459800003PEREIRO, EDWARDO & LUISA M PO BOX 7343NAPLES, FL 34101---7343 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 230 LOT 20 & S 10FT OF ALLEY ADJ TO N LI OF LOT 20 VACATED BY OR 2035 PG 1367 36430800006PEREZ, JOSE A & M YVONNE 2997 54TH LN SWNAPLES, FL 34116---8023 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 267 LOT 17 OR 1390 PG 204636457880009POLL, MANUEL MARTHA VASQUEZ 3100 55TH TERR SW NAPLES, FL 34116---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 268 LOT 1136458440008QUESADA, ISRAEL 3018 54TH LN SWNAPLES, FL 34116---8026 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 231 LOT 936431480001R&R HOME SERVICES OF FL LLC 2965 49TH LN SWNAPLES, FL 34116---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 6 BLK 219 LOT 2 AND N 10FT OF ALLEY ADJ TO S LINE LOT 2 VACATED BY RES 95-639 IN OR 2126 PG 1968 36318960000RAMOS, CARLOS & ALICIA3055 54TH LN SWNAPLES, FL 34116---8025GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 267 LOT 1336457720004REATEGUI, JOSEPH G3130 58TH ST SWNAPLES, FL 34116---0GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 N 75FT OF S 150FT OF TR 9338168440008REFERENCE ONLYSANTA BARBARA CLUBA CONDOMINIUMGOLDEN GATE UNIT 6 BLK 226 LOTS 1 & 2 NOW SANTA BARBARA CLUB CONDO OR 1049 PG 47936324960007REYES, WENDY2031 SANTA BARBARA BLVDNAPLES, FL 34116---0GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 230 LOT 26 & S 10FT OF ALLEY ADJ TO N LI OF LOT 26 VACATED BY OR 2035 PG 136736431040001RIVERO, VIRGINIO & ZENAIDA3091 54TH LN SWNAPLES, FL 34116---0GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 267 LOT 1136457640003ROBINSON, RUBY J2990 54TH LN SWNAPLES, FL 34116---8024GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 231 LOT 11 OR 1725 PG 59036431560002RODRIGUEZ, ALADINO & ESPERANZA 3084 SANTA BARBARA BLVDNAPLES, FL 34116---7422GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 269 LOT 6 OR 1725 PG 168136459160002RODRIGUEZ, ELOY3830 23RD AVE SWNAPLES, FL 34117---6654GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 230 LOT 27 & S 10FT OF ALLEY ADJ TO N LI OF LOT 27 VACATED BY OR 2035 PG 136736431080003RUIZ, YANET & EZEQUIEL3581 29TH AVE SWNAPLES, FL 34117---8423GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 269 LOT 536459120000SALZMANN, THOMAS F & SUSAN L PO BOX 7969NAPLES, FL 34101---7969GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 E 105FT OF TR 9738168720003SANCHEZ, JUSTINOVIRGEN MARGARITA SANCHEZ 5465 29TH PL SWNAPLES, FL 34116---8052GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 230 LOT 19 & S 10FT OF ALLEY ADJ TO N LI OF LOT 19 VACATED BY OR 2035 PG 136736430760007SANNICANDRO, JAKE & CHRISTINA 5791 GOLDEN GATE PKWYNAPLES, FL 34116---7460GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 W 105FT OF TR 9138168200002SARTA, CARMINE2972 55TH TER SWNAPLES, FL 34116---8032GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 268 LOT 236458080002SMITH, REBECCAJEREMIAH WATTS3036 54TH LN SWNAPLES, FL 34116---8026GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 231 LOT 836431440009STEPHENSON II, RICHARD E3220 58TH ST SWNAPLES, FL 34116---7407GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 N 180FT OF TR 9538168560001SZEMPRUCH, JOAN CAROL3101 54TH LN SWNAPLES, FL 34116---8027GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 267 LOT 1036457600001TELLO, EUDORO MARCIAL FALCONI MARIA CARIDAD GUTIERREZ CORDOBA11925 COLLIER BLVD #102 NAPLES, FL 34116---0SANTA BARBARA CLUBA CONDOMINIUM UNIT 272580080002TOBY USA LLC10301 NW 9TH ST CIR APT 202MIAMI, FL 33172---3286SANTA BARBARA CLUBA CONDOMINIUM UNIT 572580200002TRIANA, YAILENY SANCHEZ2733 55TH TER SWNAPLES, FL 34116---7527GOLDEN GATE UNIT 6 BLK 226 LOT 1936325640009VALENCIA, JACINTO A5515 29TH PL SWNAPLES, FL 34116---8058GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 230 LOT 23 & THAT PORTION OF VACA- TED ALLEY ADJ TO N LI OF LOT 23 VACATED BY OR 2035 PG 1367 36430920009WELCH, JOHN2724 SANTA BARBARA BLVD APT 3NAPLES, FL 34116---7404SANTA BARBARA CLUBA CONDOMINIUM UNIT 372580120001WENDLE CLINTON &VERA L SMALLRIDGE TRUST 318 SARA LANEMAYNARDVILLE, TN 37807---5416 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 268 LOT 336458120001WEST COAST DEV CORP OF NA INC 1100 COMMERCIAL BLVD #118NAPLES, FL 34104---0GOLDEN GATE UNIT 6 ALL OF BLK 228, LESS THAT PART DESC IN OR 704 PG 1969, LESS THAT PART DESC IN OR 4639 PG 1746, LESS 36326640008WEST COAST DEV CORP OF NA INC 1100 COMMERCIAL BLVD #118NAPLES, FL 34104---0GOLDEN GATE UNIT 6 THAT PART OF BLOCK 228 DESC IN OR 4639 PG 1746, AND THAT PART DESC IN OR 4287 PG 214236326990101WILLIAM DIETRICH I TRUST3090 55TH TER SWNAPLES, FL 34116---8034GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 268 LOT 1036458400006ZABALA, JOSE ANDRES & DEVIN 5720 NAPA WOODS WAYNAPLES, FL 34116---0SANTA BARBARA CLUBA CONDOMINIUM UNIT 472580160003ZABALA, ROBERT ENRIQUE5866 NAPA WOODS WAYNAPLES, FL 34116---0SANTA BARBARA CLUBA CONDOMINIUM UNIT 172580040000Copy of POList_1000_PL20200000386-PL20200000385.xls9.A.1.gPacket Pg. 424Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial ND-GCI0458750-01 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING Petition PL20200000385 Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict and Petition PL20200000386 3001 SB CPUD Rezone A Neighborhood Information Meeting hosted by D.Wayne Arnold,AICP,of Q.Grady Minor & Associates,P.A.and Richard D.Yo vanovich of Coleman,Yo vanovich &Koester,P.A.,representing RaceTrac Petroleum,Inc.(Applicant)will be held on Thursday,August 13,2020,5:30 pm at Parkway Life Church,5975 Golden Gate Pkwy,Naples,FL 34116.Individuals who would like to participate remotely,should contact Sharon Umpenhour at 239-947-1144 or sumpenhour@ gradyminor.com.Project information is posted online at www.gradyminor.com/planning. RaceTrac Petroleum,Inc.has submitted formal applications to Collier County,seeking approval of a Small-Scale Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA)and Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD)rezone.The GMPA proposes to create a new subdistrict in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan,Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element to allow up to 21,500 square feet of general commercial uses in the subdistrict and rezone the property from the E,Estates Zoning District to CPUD Zoning District. The subject property (Parcel Number 38170040001)is comprised of approximately 6.4±acres, located on the Southwest quadrant of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard in Section 29,To wnship 49 South,Range 26 East,Collier County,Florida. If you are unable to attend the meeting or you have questions or comments,please contact Sharon Umpenhour at Q.Grady Minor and Associates,P.A.,3800 Via Del Rey,Bonita Springs,Florida 34134,email:sumpenhour@gradyminor.com,phone:239-947-1144,fax: 239-947-0375.The Neighborhood Information Meeting is for informational purposes only,it is not a public hearing. 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 425 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 426 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial PL20200000385 Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict and PL20200000386 3001 SB CPUD Rezone, August 13, 2020 NIM Page 1 of 12 Wayne Arnold: Well, good evening everybody. My name is Wayne Arnold, and I'm a planner with Q. Grady Minor & Associates, representing the applicant Racetrac, tonight. Have several people from our team that are present. We have Rich Yovanovich, who is the land use council. We have Yury Bykau from TR Transportation, our transportation consultant. We have Peninsula Engineering and Bruce Layman here is our environmental consultant. And this is Sharon Umpenhour, who is going to be taping and helping us with the presentation. This is also available on Zoom. We had some of the County participants are participating via Zoom and our applicant is in Atlanta tonight and couldn't make it down to Naples, so he's participating by Zoom. If there are questions, we're hoping that the audio works well enough. If not all, whatever comments are made on the computer, if we can't hear them on the audio here, I'll be happy to repeat those and we'll make sure the records um, available for everybody. Sharon's going to be also recording this. We have to provide a transcript of this meeting to the County; it's just part of the review process. Tom Hardy with Racetrac and Cleo Chang from Racetrac are both on Zoom and are available here to listen in and offer any comments as necessary. From the County, it looks like signed in, we have Nancy Gundlach, who's the principal planner in zoning, who's handling the zoning application. And Anita Jenkins – she's in charge of both zoning and planning for the County. She's here, I think, representing the conference planning site tonight for the plan amendment application that's also a companion to the zoning application. With that, Connie, if you want to just advance that to the aerial location map. So, we're here representing two applications tonight. As I mentioned, there's a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment to the Golden Gate area master plan that we're proposing. It does two things. One, there are two provisions. One of them directly affects this property. Well, they both directly affect this property, but 6.4 acres, church is existing on the site, has been for many, many years. We're proposing to create a new planning sub-district that would allow this to be commercial, in addition to the church. The application that we're proposing would allow for us to have C3 type commercial uses, as well as limited C4 general commercial uses, one of which we've identified could be a carwash. So, that's the comp plan designation we would create. There's a companion zoning amendment that would change the zoning from E-Estates to a planned unit development for commercial development. We have a master plan that I'll walk you through momentarily. 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 427 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial PL20200000385 Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict and PL20200000386 3001 SB CPUD Rezone, August 13, 2020 NIM Page 2 of 12 But there are two applications. Right now, the Golden Gate master plan does not permit true commercial development on the site. Frankly, it doesn't even permit a church by standard. The only thing that's permitted here is one house per two and a quarter acres. Given the location of this at the intersection of Santa Barbara and Golden Gate, two six lane roads. The intersection is huge; it's not likely that anybody's going to put a single-family home on that location. So, we're in the review process now. This is a required meeting by the County. Once we submitted our applications and they've had a chance to review them, we then have an opportunity to come out to the community and hold a neighborhood meeting to tell you what we're doing, obtain some input from you. If you have any questions or comments, then those comments are recorded and they're provided on to the County staff, as well as the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners for them to have as part of the public hearing process. This is not a public hearing tonight. This is an informational meeting. There will be a Planning Commission hearing in several months, when we get through the sufficiency review of our applications, and then that's followed by a Board of County Commissioner action that would take final action to either approve or deny or approve with conditions what were proposing. Connie, if you could move that along to the next one. This is another location exhibit. It shows you that – I'm sure most of you must be familiar or neighbors to the property, but the church property is existing. We have the school, obviously, now to the South. Um, we have commercial and residential to the East. And then, of course we have the States Residential West of us, and then to the North is the undeveloped property that's been zoned for some time for office and medical office uses. Do you want to advance that, Connie? I appreciate it. This is just a highlight slide telling you that we were are in for two applications, as I mentioned, an amendment to the master plan for Golden Gate, and it a zoning change to change it from E-Estates to a commercial plan development. It's known as a project named 3001 Santa Barbara commercial. It's about 6.4 acres in size. Next slide please, Connie. Again, so to reiterate, the small-scale amendment application would allow us to have a maximum of 21,500 square feet of commercial uses on the site, as well as the C3 and limited C4 uses. Then the rezoning we carry forward those same things with a maximum 21,500 square feet of commercial land usage. And what we have on the next page is the actual sub-district language. Connie, if you don't mind moving that slide. This is the 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 428 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial PL20200000385 Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict and PL20200000386 3001 SB CPUD Rezone, August 13, 2020 NIM Page 3 of 12 formality of what would get inserted into the Golden Gate master plan that says we have to rezone this to a PUD. We're restricted to a maximum of 21,500 square feet. We have to make sure that our PUD accommodates appropriate buffer setbacks dimensional standards, which would be setbacks in building heights, et cetera. And then, there's also language that restricts this to C1 through C3 commercial uses and limited C4 uses. Next slide, Connie. This is how the permitted use section is setup in the PUD. We've identified that we're allowed to do all the C1 through C3 commercial, which is the office commercial through intermediate commercial uses, as well as limited C4. Right now, we've identified car washes as one of those C4 uses we know. We're still reviewing to make sure that there's not others that we need to have, but we'll certainly – anybody who's here tonight would like to make sure we have contact information if you signed in on the sign in sheet, or you want to provide Sharon your name, or there's other contact information at the end where you can log in and view this in real time as it goes through the review process, to see what things may change as we go through the review. Next slide, Connie. Sort of Unique to several projects in Golden Gate, we've come up with a long list of prohibited uses, because neighbors have formally said, well, there's a lot of uses in C1 through C3, or even C4, that we certainly don't want to see. So, we started creating a list of prohibited uses, and this has health services, day labor type things. We've prohibited soup kitchens and homeless shelters, hospitals and specialty hospitals for psychiatric care and drug rehabilitation, and things of that nature. Those are all prohibited. That's a list that we have that are things that we can't do on the site. Next slide, Connie. This is our conceptual master plan. We're working to add more detail to this, but at this moment, this is where we are. So, on the top of the page is Golden Gate Parkway. To the right side of the page is Santa Barbara Boulevard. We're proposing to have two access points on Golden Gate and have one access point on the far South end of our property on Santa Barbara. The access points, we're negotiating those with Collier County Transportation staff right now. We're hopeful that we can get a left directional access into the site, which would put it probably on the far Western portion of the property. Internally there will probably be a series of frontage roads and connecting roads so you can travel from Golden Gate Parkway and then onto Santa Barbara Boulevard. And we have a small water management area we're proposing and some of the native vegetation that's onsite will be 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 429 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial PL20200000385 Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict and PL20200000386 3001 SB CPUD Rezone, August 13, 2020 NIM Page 4 of 12 mitigated offsite. There's a small cluster of trees that really don't function as habitat or tree clusters so we'll be either making those trees up onsite or we'll be going offsite to mitigate for those. But internally we've provided– It's hard to see on this screen, unfortunately, but probably the most intense use would be limited to the corner. And then, we have three other potential lots that are part of that. So, four total lots we're looking at for the property. Next slide, Connie. This is probably hard to see on this screen. The clarity's not great, but this is the master plan that I was just showing you overlaid on an aerial photograph so you can get an idea of just how it relates to the current improvements and what's around us. And again, showing the access points with arrows on there, we have a 25 to 30-foot wide buffer on our western boundary. And it's varied because we've asked for a couple of deviations that – for an internal buffer in between out parcels, if we utilize that and put in narrower internal buffers, we have to increase the buffer on our western property boundary to 30 feet. So, it would be in flux somewhere between 25 and 30 feet. Connie, next slide, please. Our PUD also contains development standards. This is what I referred to with those dimensional criteria that we have. We've identified required setbacks from Golden Gate and Santa Barbara, as well as our western PUD boundary. We've established maximum building heights and minimum structure sizes as well as our total maximum square feet of 21,500 that I previously mentioned. Next slide, Connie. So, we have a few deviations that are related to signage. These are specific to gas station user that have been approved for other sites around Collier County. I'm not going to go through the details of them, but they're signage for facilities with fuel pumps, and they are to allow – really the way the county structured the code and, Rich, you've done all of them so I think if you need to answer this, feel free to jump in, but these are – the county's code is really specific and was very generic. Racetrac in this example has a very specific program for signage that they've used and would like to use here as well. So, that's what those deviations will allow us to do. Next slide, please. These were the landscape deviations, and this would allow us to have internal lesser setbacks between out parcel users while putting the larger buffer to the external side of the western side of the property, as well as putting different sized trees in. And that was something that staff had asked us to do as part of the deviation request. Next slide, please. So, the presentation, it's a very quick overview but this is some contact information, and I'll just leave that up for a 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 430 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial PL20200000385 Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict and PL20200000386 3001 SB CPUD Rezone, August 13, 2020 NIM Page 5 of 12 moment. And this tells you how you can access these documents and our application materials online through either our GradyMinor.com website or collier county's web portal that they have, which is available on their city view site. I'm not sure if any of you all go to the county government website, but through their development review, you can go on and look at our application as well as all the submittal documents that we make, all the staff comments that are made. And our next steps after that will be to – you'll see, once we get through the next probably two or three months worth of reviews with staff, we'll get to a point where they tell us we're ready to go to a planning commission hearing. So, then that's the point at which you'll see the four by eight signs you've seen at other places be posted on the site. And those would have the dates of the hearings. If you received a mail notice for this meeting, you should receive a mail notice from Collier County for those public hearings as well. And as I said, the final action would be taken by the Board of County Commissioners, but we don't have firm hearing dates established for those yet. So, with that, I'll end my presentation and try to entertain questions. And then, like I said, we have Tom Hardy from Racetrac who can answer questions, Rich, financial questions, or if you have traffic questions, we can deal with them, too. Sharon Umpenhour: You don't think we'll need to use the microphone? Wayne: Yeah. I'm not sure exactly how some – I think the other microphone – just so we can make sure everybody hears, if we wouldn't mind speaking into the microphone. If you can come forward and maybe try not to touch it. That way we can try to be as sanitary as possible. But if you wouldn't mind coming forward to ask a question, and one of the things that the county has asked us to do is to make sure that– And if you don't want to reveal your name, that's okay. But they want to try to distinguish when they read a transcript, whether it's me speaking or one of the applicant's team that's speaking versus a member of the public. So, if you feel comfortable giving your name, feel free. If you don't, just say I'm a member of the public, and here's my question or comment. So, with that, if anybody has any questions raise your hand or make your way to the microphone that Sharon placed over here on the side, and we will try to capture everything. No? Somebody's got to have a question or comment. There we go. Okay. Eric Hope: Hello, I'm Eric. I'm a neighbor here. My only question is with the boundary line of their proposed plan, but it's right up on somebody's driveway. Is there any plan to do some kind of sound 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 431 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial PL20200000385 Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict and PL20200000386 3001 SB CPUD Rezone, August 13, 2020 NIM Page 6 of 12 wall or some kind of major block? Because that would be really annoying to me if I live right next door to that. Wayne: Well, the county's buffering standards – I think it's a Type B buffer that's required, and it requires at least a test requirement. I don't know that we've gotten far enough along in our planning to know that we've got a sound wall or anything like that planned, but certainly the applicant's listening in and hearing your comments as well, so. [Crosstalk] Wayne: Thank you. Yes, sir. Bill Desaro: Hi, I'm Bill Desaro. On slide 11, the traffic pattern – Wayne: Can you come back to that, Connie? Slide 11, please. Bill: On the top of the screen there, it shows a turn in from the westbound lane. That's a significant concern. If anybody that lives close by this corner knows that the traffic going eastbound at any given time, especially during rush hour, stacks up back to 58th Street. Um, so to try to make – and plus, when that turn lane going north um, is backed up, and that's a red light for the turn lane, green light going east on Golden Gate Parkway. People coming westbound would be trying to cross over a red light, stopped traffic, and then a green-lighted other three lanes of traffic doing high rate of speed – just let's face it. On Golden Gate Parkway, people do 60 miles an hour easily all day long. So, if you're trying to go from the westbound lane, cut across 60 miles an hour traffic after trying to cut through people that are sitting there parked, waiting for the light to change, I really hope the county is going to reconsider that because that's – people are going to die there. I think that's just definite. And then, after a couple of accidents happen, then they'll probably change it. So, hopefully they're proactive in taking measures to not allow some – we have enough people that come down that way and turn around at 58th and go back on Golden Gate Parkway. Most of us would be more okay with that even though it's not optimum solution either, but that turn in on the top part of the page there is, in my opinion, just not an option. Wayne: Yeah, and we're through our first review with the county, and I don't think that they have blessed any part of the application yet. So, I appreciate your comments, and we'll certainly … the county 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 432 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial PL20200000385 Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict and PL20200000386 3001 SB CPUD Rezone, August 13, 2020 NIM Page 7 of 12 staff is listening and I'm sure they're taking notes on that as well. Bill: I have another question of you. Wayne: Sure. Bill: I know that you're at the beginning of this whole process, do you have a um, potential site plan or layout of how this is going to potentially lay out on the property? Wayne: We are working on that. Racetrac Petroleum is looking at that. Obviously, we think that the gas station component, if they move ahead with that, would be on the corner parcel. And orientation, obviously of the pump and canopy islands would face either Santa Barbara or Golden Gate, one of the two. I mean, we've all driven past a number of these – Bill: Of course. I mean, I go to a Racetrac every day at work. I have no issue with them as a corporation. They're great. The manager that I speak to every morning to get coffee is awesome. I know that they do a nice job with their buildings and maintain everything well. So, that's not the concern I don't think for any of us. I don't think the concern really is that we don't want it. I don't know. It's not necessarily a bad thing to bring it to the area. It could be a nice little anchor as opposed to the church that's just sitting there kind of deteriorating. But, I think the major concern is obviously traffic. We have enough traffic as it is. Not sure that this is going to bring really any more or less, to be honest. But um, for people that live um, near the boundaries on the um, west side, also on the north side, even on the south side, any of the boundaries, um, we would be concerned with how the building lays out simply because of um, the time of day. You know, if the car wash opens at 7:00 a.m. you got those big blowers. It's configured in a manner where let's just say towards the west, you have the exit for the car wash. I'm not saying this is how it's going to be, but potentially if it is, you have a person coming out of a car wash at 7:00 a.m. big blowers going, vacuum area, vacuums are running. That kind of thing. Also, if it's configured a certain way, Racetrac has a dumpster. I'm sure that the carting companies come early in the morning, 5:30 in the morning, whatever, pick up the dumpsters. Our concern and I speak for a couple people that I know and speak to, that would be a concern. If and when the whole process takes place, that they would consider our input in terms of how they can configure things that would be less intrusive into our daily life. 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 433 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial PL20200000385 Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict and PL20200000386 3001 SB CPUD Rezone, August 13, 2020 NIM Page 8 of 12 Wayne: Absolutely. I know that they will, and I know staff will demand that as well. I appreciate your comments so much. Sharon: What was your name, sir? Bill: Bill Desario. Wayne: Thank you. Anything else? Bill: I think it's good. Wayne: Okay. Bill: For the moment. Wayne: You can come back to it. Bill: Thank you. Appreciate it. Wayne: Yes, ma'am. Robin McDonald: – I actually have two concerns. One is that Golden Gate Parkway was supposed to be a green exit, no gas stations, no fast food, so on and so forth. My concern is that this is going to crack the door to other things along the exit, McDonalds, Burger Kings, so on and so forth. The other concern is your right next to a school and you're serving alcohol. I don't think that's a very good idea. Wayne: Okay. Well, thank you for that. Sharon: What was your name, ma'am? Robin: Robin McDonald. Wayne: The County – this is Wayne Arnold, just so the record can catch that, the county does have standards for consumption on premises. If it's served in a setting such as a restaurant or something, they aren't allowed within 500 feet of schools and churches and things like that. We couldn't have a standalone bar or things like that, but consumption on the premises is permitted. We added language to the code that says that we're basically entitled to have that because there are, obviously, enough convenience gas stations that all sell beer, wine, et cetera. That, obviously, is a component if the gas station component moves ahead. Just to be clear on that. The other, with regard to your green comment, the county does severely limit 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 434 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial PL20200000385 Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict and PL20200000386 3001 SB CPUD Rezone, August 13, 2020 NIM Page 9 of 12 the commercial along this corridor. They didn't want commercial right at the interchange. Rich worked for David Lawrence for instance. He's been here for almost 30 years at their location. To expand, it took a comprehensive plan amendment and a lot of time and effort to get them to expand the bingo hall to work on as well, and that was a similar item. So, it's not an easy process to do that. This is two miles from the interstate. I'm not quite sure where they are replacing non-residential use today. Wayne: Yes ma'am. Richard Yovanovich: Just too, Wayne to add. I don't know if this was your comment or not. Richard Yovanovich for the record make sure the Plan Commission knows who it is. There's a prohibition in the comprehensive plan at the interstate to prohibit any commercial uses at the interstate. Was that what your comment was referring to because that's where it's absolutely prohibited? Robin: Originally when they were talking about – because I've been here since before the exchange, is they said that from the Livingston, which wasn't even there anymore. At that time, it was Airport Road and Santa Barbara, that there would be nothing commercial, that churches were allowed. Um, David Lawrence was already existing so that was the church on the corner – Richard: No, I know. You're absolutely right. The comprehensive plan. Robin: And the bridge club. All of that was already there. Richard: They've been here forever, yeah. Female Speaker: So, why don't we have a gas station here? Richard: Well, what – Robin: It was said that it would stay green from the Santa Barbara to Airport Road. No convenience, no gas station, no fast food. Richard: If I can, I'll briefly say and then Wayne can take over. A woman from the audience asked, why are we asking for gas station? Why are we asking to change this corner? Female Speaker: Right, especially with the car wash. Richard: I understand the car wash comment. I think the reality is, and I've been here 30 years and you guys probably here at least that long, if 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 435 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial PL20200000385 Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict and PL20200000386 3001 SB CPUD Rezone, August 13, 2020 NIM Page 10 of 12 not longer. I used to live in the apartments right by the county park on this street, so I'm very familiar with this area. I don't think anybody envisioned how big this intersection became from two six-lane roads. I mean, it's got to be, if it's not the largest intersection in Collier County, it's got to be pretty close to one of the biggest intersections. This property, I think we all have to acknowledge, is not an appropriate residential piece of property. Just like we went through the same change, Wayne and I worked on, I’m directionally challenged, the northwest quadrant right across the street. I think people acknowledged that was not an appropriate residential piece of property either. We are going through this process because there are some exceptions to that general rule that you didn't want to have a long corridor of non- residential uses on the Golden Gate Parkway. That's why we're going through this process because I think that with the change of circumstances surrounding this intersection. I don't think it's an appropriate residential piece of property. That's why we don't think Robin: There's actually been several new residences built along the Parkway. Richard: Oh, I don't doubt that. Robin: It just seems to be the right person who would want it, and there's already an existing church. So, that's an expense. That's probably why somebody hasn't approached that for the property. Richard: Well, it's – I can tell you, I think that. I don't know who that buyer is that wants to live on a six-lane by six-lane intersection. I agree further up and down Golden Gate Parkway, you can properly buffer yourself and make sure you have easier access to the property now. I don't think this is that site that really lends itself to residential. Wayne: Thank you. Ma'am, want to go ahead? Leighanne Dietrich: Yeah. My name Leighanne Dietrich. I'm concerned about the – back to Bill Desaro's question, that entrance there and exit, ingress, egress I'm afraid that when you do that, you'll block off turning left into 58th Street Southwest, which is where I live. And I don't want it to end up like they did 70th Street, where you have to go – I don't even know how far you have to go. Eric Hope: You have to go to a back road to get to another road – Leighanne: Yeah. That would really tick me off. 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 436 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial PL20200000385 Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict and PL20200000386 3001 SB CPUD Rezone, August 13, 2020 NIM Page 11 of 12 Sharon: What's your name, ma'am? Leighanne: Leighanne Dietrich. Wayne: Thank you. Anybody else have questions or comments? No? If you don't then we'll adjourn the meeting. Sharon: Do you want to ask our Zoom participants? Wayne: Do you have any, do you have any comments or questions you want to make or Nancy or Anita? Do you have any comments you need to make? Nancy Gundlach: Thank you for your presentation. Thank you to all the attendees who came out tonight. Wayne: Thank you. It sounds like we just had a rain shower. Sharon: Could you hear us okay? Wayne: Thank you for coming out. Nancy: Yes. Wayne: Good. Thank you, Nancy. Thank you with that, are we adjourned? Thank you all. Female Speaker: I have one question; does the car wash have to go with it? Can't we just not have a car wash, if we have to have a gas station? Wayne: Well, we think the carwash kind of goes hand in hand with a gas station. Female Speaker: But this is Golden Gate – Richard: I understand, that’s why we have these meetings. Let us go back and talk to our client. Female Speaker: Please, no car wash, it's going to be bad enough as it is for those of us who use Golden Gate Parkway continuously. We have no choice. I tried to get in a neighbor here. Wayne: And as Rich mentioned, that's why we have these meetings to share with you and hear your concerns so we'll be talking to our client. 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 437 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial PL20200000385 Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict and PL20200000386 3001 SB CPUD Rezone, August 13, 2020 NIM Page 12 of 12 Female Speaker: I'm totally against the whole thing the gas station, the carwash is even worse. Bill: Okay. The other car wash aspect to it would be that there's a brand new one right at Berkshire. There's also brand new renovated one down the street. The level wash, the biggest, knocked down that building, fully completed, renovated that. That's a brand new carwash. Its just a little bit east, maybe a mile or so east. And then, you have the other one that's a little bit south. Wayne: We're still recording this by the way, just to make sure we're– if you don't mind coming to the microphone, just to make sure it's there, appreciate it. Bill: The car wash issue. I'll just reiterate what I said, so that everybody can hear. It would be something to take into consideration for the project developer and the owner. Being that we have a brand-new carwash, maybe a mile or so, right at Berkshire Plaza next to Publix. There's also a brand new one that they fully renovated about a mile East into Golden Gate City, a little bit, about a brand new Lava wash there. So, you would have three car washes within probably a two square mile area. All brand new competing for business. I'm all for competition and driving prices of car washes down, that would be fine by me. But, I'm not sure as a business venture for somebody that would be a smart idea. Unless you come in with the king of car washes and just blow everybody else out of the water. And then, the other issue after that, down the road would be what happens if they put the other two car washes out of business? It seems you know like we have enough car washes, that wouldn't be ultimately my decision. It would be a concern, certainly a noise concern from residents locally. That's why I was concerned about the configuration of the buildings on the property, in which way they face the residences and all that. Wayne: Okay. Thank you. Appreciate your comments on that. Anything else? If not, adjourned. Thank you all very much. Sharon: Okay. We're saying goodbye now. [End of Audio] Duration: 28 minutes 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 438 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Petitions:PL20200000385 Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict and;PL20200000386 3001 SB CPUD Rezone August 13, 2020 Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 439 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa •RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc. –Applicant •Tom Hardy, Director of Engineering –RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc. •Cleo Chang, Engineering Project Analyst –RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc. •Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq., Land Use Attorney –Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. •D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, Professional Planner –Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. •Yury Bykau, E.I, Traffic Engineer –TR Transportation Consultants, Inc. •Bruce Layman, Ecologist –Peninsula Engineering •Russ Weyer, President –Real Estate Econometrics, Inc. 2 Project Team 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 440 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa 3 Area Location Map SUBJECT PROPERTY GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY SANTA BARBARA BLVD.9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 441 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa 4 Location Map 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 442 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Existing Future Land Use:Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element,Estates Designation,Mixed Use District,Residential Estates Subdistrict Proposed Future Land Use:Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element,Estates Designation,Commercial District,Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict Current Zoning:E,Estates Proposed Zoning:3001 SB Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) Project Acreage:6.4+/-acres 5 Project Information 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 443 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa •Small-Scale amendment to the Future Land Use Element to create a new subdistrict in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan,Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element to allow up to 21,500 square feet of general commercial uses in the subdistrict •Rezone the 6.4+/-acre parcel from the E,Estates Zoning District to the 3001 SB Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD)Zoning District to construct a maximum of 21,500 square feet of commercial land uses. 6 Proposed Request 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 444 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa 7 Proposed Subdistrict Language 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 445 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa 8 Proposed Uses A.Principal Uses: 1.All permitted and Conditional Uses permitted in C-1 through C-3 Zoning Districts and including the following C-4 General Commercial use: a.Car Washes (7542) 2.Eating places (5812)with alcohol consumption on premises (COP). 3.Any other principal use,which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses,as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals (“BZA”)or the Hearing Examiner. 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 446 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa 9 Prohibited Uses Prohibited Uses, as identified with a number from the Standard Industrial Classification Manual (1987): 1.Any use that would be subject to regulation under Ordinance No. 91-83 and any amendment or successor ordinances thereto regulating sexually oriented businesses. 2.7363 –Help Supply Services, only: Labor pools; Manpower pools 3.7389 –Business Services, Not Elsewhere Classified, only: automobile recovery services; automobile repossession service; bondspersons; gas systems, contract conversion from manufactured to natural gas; metal slitting and shearing on a contract or fee basis; repossession service; solvent recovery service on a contract or fee basis. 4.7993 –Coin-Operated Amusement Devices, only: Gambling Establishments primarily operating coin- operated machines; Gambling machines, coin-operated; Slot machines. 5.Homeless shelter 6.Soup kitchens 7.8063 –Psychiatric Hospitals 8.8069 –Specialty Hospitals, Except Psychiatric, only: alcoholism rehabilitation hospitals; drug addiction rehabilitation hospitals; rehabilitation hospitals drug addiction and alcoholism; tuberculosis and other respiratory illness hospitals. 9.8322 –Individual and Family Social Services, only: alcoholism counseling, nonresidential; crisis center; crisis intervention centers; hotlines; offender rehabilitation agencies; offender self-help agencies; outreach programs; parole offices; probation offices; public welfare centers; referral services for personal and social problems; refugee services; self-help organizations for alcoholic and gamblers; settlement houses. 10.8399 –Social Services, Not Elsewhere Classified, only Social service information exchanges: e.g., alcoholism, drug addiction. 11.9223 –Correctional Institutions. 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 447 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa 10 Proposed Master Plan Note #2: If a facility with fuel pumps is proposed, landscape buffers for the facility with fuel pumps will be consistent with LDC 5.05.05 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 448 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa 11 Proposed Master Plan Overlay Note #2: If a facility with fuel pumps is proposed, landscape buffers for the facility with fuel pumps will be consistent with LDC 5.05.05 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 449 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa 12 Proposed Development Standards 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 450 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Deviation 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.05.05.C.4.b.,“Signage for Facilities with Fuel Pumps- Canopy Sign Area”,which limits the maximum sign area for the canopy to one twelve (12) square foot corporate logo to instead allow one fifty (50)square foot corporate logo on the north canopy front façade facing Golden Gate Parkway and two thirty (30)square foot corporate logo signs on the side facades facing east to Santa Barbara Boulevard and west facing the adjacent commercial parcel,if convenience store with fuel pumps is developed on the easternmost tract within the PUD. Deviation 2 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.05.05.C.4.b.,“Signage for Facilities with Fuel Pumps- Canopy Sign Location”,which only allows canopy signs on the canopy face that is adjacent to a right-of-way to instead allow a canopy sign on the west side of the fuel canopy not adjacent to a right-of-way in addition to the permitted canopy signs,if a convenience store with fuel pumps is developed on the easternmost tract within the PUD. Deviation 3 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.05.05.B.1.,“Signage for Facilities with Fuel Pumps-Site Design Requirements”,which establishes the minimum side and rear setbacks for all structures as 40 feet to instead allow for the side and rear yard setbacks internal to the PUD boundary to be reduced to 25 feet.This deviation is applicable only to internal parcel boundaries and is not applicable to side and rear yard setbacks measured to the PUD boundary.13 Proposed Deviations (Signage)9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 451 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Deviation 4 seeks relief from LDC 4.06.02,Table 2.4,footnote 3,Buffer Requirements,which allows for the required buffer between commercial outparcels to be shared with a total width of 15 feet (7.5 feet on each parcel)to instead allow for shared buffers between commercial outparcels to have a minimum required width of ten feet (five feet on each parcel)provided that the total width of the landscape buffer provided between the proposed development and the west CPUD boundary line is increased to 30 feet. Deviation 5 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.05.D.2.,“Plant Material Standards”,which requires all required new individual trees,shall be species having an average mature spread or crown of greater than 20 feet in the Collier County area and having trunk(s)which can be maintained in a clean condition over five feet of clear wood.Trees adjacent to walkways,bike paths and rights-of-way shall be maintained in a clean condition over eight feet of clear wood.Trees having an average mature spread or crown less than 20 feet may be substituted by grouping the same so as to create the equivalent of 20-foot crown spread.For code-required trees,the trees at the time of installation shall be a minimum of 25 gallon,ten feet in height,have a 1¾- inch caliper (at 12 inches above the ground)and a four-foot spread to instead allow the trees planted within the reduced buffers between outparcels to have less than a 20 foot spread and without the need to provide them in groupings.The balance of trees required in the outparcel buffers will be provided for within the PUD perimeter buffers.14 Proposed Deviations (Landscape)9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 452 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa 15 Conclusion Documents and information can be found online: •Gradyminor.com/Planning •Collier County GMD Public Portal: cvportal.colliergov.net/cityviewweb Next Steps •Hearing sign(s) posted on property advertising Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) and Board of County Commissioner (BCC) hearing dates. 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 453 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa 9.A.1.gPacket Pg. 454Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.gPacket Pg. 455Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 456 Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.gPacket Pg. 457Attachment: PL20200000385 May 20 2021 CCPC Backup (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 458 Attachment: Hybrid Hearing Waiver (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict GMPA) Good afternoon, My name is Thomas Salzmann and I live at 5720 Golden Gate Pkwy Naples, FL 34116 along with my wife Susan. Susan and I purchased our home in 1995. For 25 years we have been making this location our perfect home, raising two children, and having a home office for our company. In our 25 years of being at this property adjacent to the church all we hear are church gatherings, people singing, and music. Now, we are starting to get a little older and can finally enjoy some of the fruits of our labor with our small piece of paradise. That all came to a halt when we received a notification that RaceTrac wants to develop the corner adjacent to our property. However, this idea should not even be entertained due to the conflict with the Golden Gate Area Master Plan which prevents such commercial growth between Goodlette Road and Santa Barbara Blvd. Attached below is an excerpt from the Master Plan referencing the conflict. The way that this is being circumvented is that the property on the corner has a Santa Barbara address (3001 Santa Barbara Blvd.) despite a the property in question having only approximately 390’ of frontage along Santa Barbara Blvd and approximately 712’ of frontage along Golden Gate Pkwy; a clear majority. GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN Policy 5.2.3: Recognizing the residential nature of the land uses surrounding the I -75 interchange at Golden Gate Parkway, as well as the restrictions on conditional uses of the Conditional Uses Sub district of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, there shall be no further commercial zoning for properties abutting Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. No new commercial uses shall be permitted on properties abutting streets accessing Golden Gate Parkway within the above- defined segment. This policy shall not apply to that existing portion of the Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Sub district, which is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The concept of building a RaceTrac on the southeast corner of Golden Gate Pkwy and Santa Barbara Blvd is poorly thought out and a major safety hazard. Adding a turning lane to the front of 5720 and 5724 Golden Gate Pkwy’s front easement will get someone killed. An entry to a RaceTrac right past the entrance to my driveway along with a west bound turning lane so close to the intersection of Golden Gate Pkwy and Santa Barbara Blvd will be a compete nightmare for anyone traveling east or west- bound on Golden Gate Parkway in this area. There will surely be a sign on I-75 before the Golden Gate exit that advertises the new RaceTrac just 0.2 miles from the exit which will lead to even more traffic trying to get off on Golden Gate Pkwy. Not to mention, the constant noise pollution from a RaceTrac: cars, trucks, maintenance vehicles, semi-trucks, garbage disposal, engines running, speakers, fluorescent lights, car wash vacuums and high speed blowers all within 25’ of my property and 24 hours a day. By allowing the construction of a RaceTrac, fast food restaurant and a car wash adjacent to my property will kill the value of it, and my neighbor’s to the west. You’re also going to kill an innocent person driving, walking, or riding a bike, trying to cross traffic or trying to turn into RaceTrac and the traffic jam you just created. 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 459 Attachment: Letter of Objection - TSalzmann (04-25-2021) (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Approval of this project will result in another situation similar to Pine Ridge Road exit 107 or Collier Blvd 951 exit 101. The difference is that the Pine Ridge Road and Collier Blvd. gasoline stations, fast food restaurants, and car washes are zoned commercially, and there are not any resi dential properties adjacent to those interchanges. Golden Gate Pkwy is all residential, excluding churches, David C Lawrence, Bingo halls, fitness centers. Outside of the Golden Gate City it is already in place. We already have 2 other car washes, gasoline convenience stores, fast food, restaurants, and beverage stores within a mile of this intersection this will take away from their operations. You have approved a sport facility off of Collier Blvd., I am sure there will sign directing traffic down Pine Ri dge Road Exit 107, Golden Gate Pkwy Exit 105, and Collier Blvd. exit 101. Before too long Golden Gate Parkway will look similar to Daniels Parkway in Fort Myers when the Red Sox have a spring training game; total gridlock. On top of the traffic fiasco, the selling, consumption of beer, wine, and cigarettes right next to a school with no boundaries, fencing, or walls separating the RaceTrac from the school is shameful. We the people elected you the commissioners to protect us from big corporations like this. The Golden Gate Area Master Plan is supposed to protect us from this happening! I am kindly requesting the Board of County Commissioners to take a step back and evaluate the negative ramifications of approving this RaceTrac project. Please consider how it will affect the Golden Gate area community, safety, and livelihoods of everyone involved. Thank you for your time, Tom Salzmann 9.A.1.i Packet Pg. 460 Attachment: Letter of Objection - TSalzmann (04-25-2021) (15969 : PL20200000385 - Santa Barbara Blvd.- Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial 06/17/2021 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.2 Item Summary: ***NOTE: This item has been continued from the May 20, 2021 CCPC Meeting*** PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD - An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which includes the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from the Estates (E) zoning district to a Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) zoning district for a project known as 3001 SB CPUD. The project will allow up to 21,500 square feet of permitted and conditional uses in the C-1, Commercial Professional and General Office district, through C-3, Intermediate Commercial zoning district and a car wash, with the final mix of uses subject to a maximum traffic generation rate. The property is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Santa Barbara Boulevard and Golden Gate Parkway in Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 6.4± acres; and by providing an effective date. (Companion item to GMPA-PL20200000385 Santa Barbara Boulevard/Golden Gate Parkway Commercial Subdistrict) [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, PLA, Principal Planner] Meeting Date: 06/17/2021 Prepared by: Title: Planner, Principal – Zoning Name: Nancy Gundlach 05/27/2021 4:21 PM Submitted by: Title: Planner, Principal – Zoning Name: Anita Jenkins 05/27/2021 4:21 PM Approved By: Review: Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 05/28/2021 1:18 PM Planning Commission Diane Lynch Review item Completed 05/28/2021 3:11 PM Zoning Ray Bellows Additional Reviewer Completed 06/04/2021 5:32 PM Zoning Anita Jenkins Zoning Director Review Completed 06/07/2021 2:37 PM Growth Management Department James C French GMD Deputy Dept Head Completed 06/08/2021 4:17 PM Planning Commission Edwin Fryer Meeting Pending 06/17/2021 9:00 AM 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 461 3001 SB CPUD, PUDR-PL20200000386 May 13, 2021 Page 1 of 25 STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION – ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT - PLANNING & REGULATION HEARING DATE: MAY 20, 2021 SUBJECT: PUDR-PL20200000386, 3001 SB COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CPUD) COMPANION TO SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD/GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT GMPA, PL20200000385 _______________________________________________________________________________ PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT AND AGENTS: Property Owner: Applicant: Goodwill Industries of SW FL, Inc. RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc. 5100 Tice Street 200 Galleria Parkway Fort Myers, FL 33905 Atlanta, GA 30339 Agents: D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Naples, FL 34103 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which includes the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from the Estates (E) zoning district to a Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) zoning district for a project known as 3001 SB CPUD. The project will allow up to 21,500 square feet of permitted and conditional uses in the C-1, Commercial Professional and General Office district, through C-3, Intermediate Commercial zoning district, and a car wash, with the final mix of uses subject to a maximum traffic generation rate. 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 462 Attachment: Staff Report 3001 SB CPUD 5-13-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 3001 SB CPUD, PUDR-PL20200000386 May 13, 2021 Page 2 of 25 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 463 Attachment: Staff Report 3001 SB CPUD 5-13-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 3001 SB CPUD, PUDR-PL20200000386 May 13, 2021 Page 3 of 25 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 464 Attachment: Staff Report 3001 SB CPUD 5-13-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 3001 SB CPUD, PUDR-PL20200000386 May 13, 2021 Page 4 of 25 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject PUD, consisting of 6.4 acres, is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Santa Barbara Boulevard and Golden Gate Parkway in Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (See the Location Map on page 2 of this Staff Report.) PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The petitioner proposes to rezone a 6.4 acre parcel from Estates (E) to Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD). The CPUD will permit a maximum of 21,500 square feet of commercial land uses. See Attachment A–Proposed PUD Ordinance. The subject site is located within the Residential Estates Subdistrict of the Urban Golden Gate Estates Future Land Use Map. The subject petition is a companion item to the Santa Barbara Boulevard/ Golden Gate Parkway Commercial Subdistrict, PL20200000385. The Master Plan, located on the previous page of this Staff Report, depicts the area of proposed commercial development, vehicular circulation, preserve, and water management areas. The Master Plan also shows that 4.68 acres will be commercial, 0.21 acres will be preserve, .36 acres will be 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 465 Attachment: Staff Report 3001 SB CPUD 5-13-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 3001 SB CPUD, PUDR-PL20200000386 May 13, 2021 Page 5 of 25 water management, and 1.15 acres will be buffers. A minimum of 30% open space has been provided. To the north of the subject PUD is Golden Gate Parkway, a 6-lane divided minor arterial roadway, and then the Collanades at Santa Barbara PUD, an undeveloped commercial office PUD. To the east of the subject PUD, is Santa Barbara Boulevard, a 6-lane divided major collector roadway, and then developed and undeveloped single-family residential dwelling units. To the south of the subject PUD is a charter middle school. To the west of the subject PUD is a single-family residence. The PUD proposes a maximum of 21,500 square feet of C-1 thru C-4 commercial land uses. The following C-4 land use is also proposed: car wash. The proposed PUD boundary setback from Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard is 50 feet, 25 feet from the charter school along the eastern boundary, and 125 feet from the residence along the western boundary. The petitioner also proposes an average 75-foot wide area along the western residential boundary containing a preserve and a water management area. The petitioner proposes a maximum zoned height of 30 feet and an actual building height of 35 feet. There is a proposed 20-foot wide Type D landscape buffer along Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard. A 10-foot wide Type A Landscape Buffer is proposed along the middle school boundary and a 15-foot wide Type B landscape buffer is proposed along the Estates residence boundary. There are five proposed deviations related to canopy signs, side and rear setbacks, and internal landscape buffers. For further information, please see the Deviation Section of this Staff Report located on page 19. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Golden Gate Parkway, a 6-lane divided minor arterial roadway, and then the Colanades at Santa Barbara PUD, an undeveloped mixed-office PUD East: Santa Barbara Boulevard, a 6-lane divided major collector roadway, and then undeveloped Parkway Center PUD, an undeveloped office PUD, and multi-family transitioning to single- family residential dwelling units with a zoning designation of Residential Multi-family (RMF-12) South: A charter middle school with a zoning designation of Estates (E) West: A single-family residence with a zoning designation of Estates (E) 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 466 Attachment: Staff Report 3001 SB CPUD 5-13-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 3001 SB CPUD, PUDR-PL20200000386 May 13, 2021 Page 6 of 25 AERIAL PHOTO GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Comprehensive Planning staff has reviewed the proposed PUD Rezone. Consideration of the Santa Barbara 3001 PUD rezone petition is contingent upon approval of the companion small -scale Growth Management Plan amendment (GMPA) petition PL20200000385/CPSS-20-3. The subject property is currently designated Estates Mixed Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict, as identified on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP). This designation does not allow commercial zoning. For further information, please refer to companion petition Santa Barbara Boulevard/Golden Gate Parkway Commercial Subdistrict, PL20200000385. Subject Site 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 467 Attachment: Staff Report 3001 SB CPUD 5-13-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 3001 SB CPUD, PUDR-PL20200000386 May 13, 2021 Page 7 of 25 Transportation Element: In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicant’s October 20, 2020, Traffic Impact Statement for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) using the then 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. Staff finding: In evaluating the 3001 SB CPUD request, staff reviewed the applicant’s Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) dated October 20, 2020, for consistency using the then applicable 2019 as well as the current 2020 Annual Update and Inventory Reports (AUIR). According to the PUD document and noted above, the applicant is requesting a maximum of 21,500 square feet of commercial use. The TIS provided with the petition outlines a scenario with a potential 5,500 square foot convenience store with 20 fueling positions, a 6,750 square foot fast food with a drive-up restaurant, and a 9,250 square foot variety store. Staff has evaluated the TIS and found that the scenario presents an accurate trip generation calculation, reasonable trip distribution on the surrounding network, and reflects a reasonable development potential with the proposed PUD. The PUD document establishes the total trip cap commitment in Exhibit F, Developer Commitments, Transportation 3.a., with a maximum of 387 two-way, PM peak hour trips. According to the TIS, the project impacts the following County roadways: Roadway/ Link # Link Location 2019 AUIR LOS P.M. Peak Hour Peak Direction Service 2019 AUIR Remaining Capacity Projected P.M. Peak Hour/Peak Direction 2020 AUIR LOS 2020 AUIR Remaining Capacity 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 468 Attachment: Staff Report 3001 SB CPUD 5-13-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 3001 SB CPUD, PUDR-PL20200000386 May 13, 2021 Page 8 of 25 Volume/Peak Direction Project Traffic (1) Golden Gate Parkway/ 20.1 Airport Pulling Rd. to Livingston Rd. D 3,300/East 605 20/EB D 583 (2) Projected deficient with trip bank 2027 Golden Gate Parkway/ 20.2 Livingston Rd. to I-75 D 3,300/East 280 44/EB D 200 (4) Projected deficient with background traffic and trip bank 2023 Golden Gate Parkway/ 21.0 I-75 to Santa Barbara Blvd. C 3,300/East 886 60/EB C 1,046 Golden Gate Parkway/ 22.0 Santa Barbara Blvd. to Collier Blvd. E 1,800/East 72 38/EB D 190 (2) Roadway is Constrained by Policy. Projected deficient with trip bank 2026 Santa Barbara Boulevard/ 76.0 Green Blvd. to Golden Gate Pkwy. D 2,100/North 480 47/NB C 510 Santa Barbara Boulevard/ 77.0 Golden Gate Pkwy. to Radio Rd. C 3,100/North 1,086 50/NB C 806 Santa Barbara Boulevard/ 78.0 Radio Rd. to Davis Blvd. C 3,100/North 1,439 24/NB C 1,365 Logan Boulevard/ 49.0 Pine Ridge Rd. to Green Blvd. D 1,900/South 400 38/NB D 320 (2) Projected deficient with trip bank 2029 Logan Boulevard/ 48.0 Vanderbilt Beach Rd. to Pine Ridge Rd. C 1,000/North 292 16/NB C 293 Collier Boulevard/ 32.1 Green Blvd. to Golden C 2,300/North 879 10/SB C 521 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 469 Attachment: Staff Report 3001 SB CPUD 5-13-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 3001 SB CPUD, PUDR-PL20200000386 May 13, 2021 Page 9 of 25 Gate Pkwy. Collier Boulevard/ 32.2 Golden Gate Pkwy. to Golden Gate Main Canal C 2,300/North 685 10/NB D 199 (2) Projected deficient with trip bank 2025 Pine Ridge Road/ 68.0 I-75 to Logan Blvd. D 2,800/East 639 4/EB D 274 (2 & 3) Projected deficient with trip bank 2026 Pine Ridge Road/ 125.0 Logan Blvd. to Collier Blvd. C 2,400/East 853 20/WB C 782 Radio Road/ 70.0 Livingston Rd. to Santa Barbara Blvd. C 1,800/East 653 14/EB D 330 Radio Road/ 71.0 Santa Barbara Blvd. to Davis Blvd. B 1,800/West 951 4/EB B 980 1. Source for P.M. Peak Hour/Peak Direction Project Traffic is from the October 20, 2020 , Traffic Impact Statement provided by the petitioner. 2. Road segment with projected deficiencies based on growth or trip bank calculations. The trips generated by this development are not projected to exceed existing capacities Peak Hour/Peak Direction and meet GMP criteria. 3. This segment has a projected deficiency due to background conditions. There are scheduled intersection improvements from Livingston to Napa Boulevard including the I-75 interchange which will increase capacity on this segment. 4. This segment has a parallel facility with intersection improvements (Pine Ridge Blvd from Livingston to Napa Boulevard) which is anticipated to improve the network and this segment will benefit from those improvements. See also notes below regarding TCMA. Florida Statute 163.3180 bullet points: ▪ Must allow an applicant to enter into a binding agreement to pay or construct their proportionate fair share when applicable. Note: There is capacity on the network to accommodate this request as noted above with the 2020 AUIR. ▪ Facilities determined to be deficient with existing, committed, and vested trips plus projected background traffic from any source other than the development shall be removed from the proportionate share calculation. ▪ The improvement necessary to correct this type of deficiency is the funding responsibility of the maintaining entity. ▪ Applicant must receive a credit for the anticipated road impact fees. ▪ Applicant will pay the required Collier County road impact fees as building permits are issued for the project. 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 470 Attachment: Staff Report 3001 SB CPUD 5-13-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 3001 SB CPUD, PUDR-PL20200000386 May 13, 2021 Page 10 of 25 Additionally: • This development is located in the East-Central Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA) which currently has 97.6% of its Lane Miles meeting standards. • As noted above Golden Gate Parkway east of Santa Barbara is a constrained by policy roadway. • The development is located on evacuation routes and impacts exceeding 1% shall be required a proportionate share congestion mitigation payment at the time of Plat or SDP as well as implementing at least two of the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies of GMP Policy 5.6 also at the time of Plat or SDP. Supplemental: • Reference: Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT): Interstate 75 at Golden Gate Parkway Interchange Project Development and Environmental (PD&E) study, Dated January 2001. The PD&E study completed by FDOT for the interchange at I-75 and Golden Gate Parkway did not contemplate the proposed project intensity. Reference Attachment A- Social Impacts, A-1 Land Use Changes, second paragraph: “The current adopted Collier County Comprehensive Land Use Plan indicates that the existing residential and provisional land uses along Golden Gate Parkway within the proposed interchange study area, will remain the same in the future. This condition is supported by current zoning designations which indicate residential and provisional uses for this area. The Comprehensive Plan further recognizes that commercial activity centers should remain concentrated at existing adjacent interchanges along I-75 in Collier County (i.e.: Pine Ridge Road and CR 951). The residential character of the Golden Gate community is further protected by the current adopted Golden Gate Estates Master Plan which includes the proposed interchange area. Therefore, it is anticipated that the existing residential and provisional land use designations will remain the same in the future.” Staff recognizes that the proposed development is located outside of the study area; however, the proposed convenience store with gas pumps and or fast-food restaurant uses are often destination attractors for interstate drivers which were not contemplated in this FDOT PD&E study. While this is not a GMP Transportation Element review criteria staff wishes to provide as broad of a review as possible. Policy 7.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states: “Collier County shall apply the standards and criteria of the Access Management Policy as adopted by Resolution and as may be amended to ensure the protection of the arterial and collector system’s capacity and integrity.” Staff finding: This development is proposing a single access on Golden Gate Parkway and a single access on Santa Barbara Boulevard. Staff recommends approval of the proposed access point shown on the master plan for this petition with a caution that the Santa Barbara access may not meet minimum separation requirements for fueling facilities adjacent to schools (LDC 5.05.05.E.2.H). This issue will be addressed at the time of Plat or SDP if a fueling facility is proposed. Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states: “The County shall require, wherever feasible, the interconnection of local streets between developments to facilitate convenient movement throughout the road network. The LDC shall identify the circumstances and conditions that would require the interconnection of neighboring developments and shall also develop standards and criteria for the safe interconnection of such local streets.” 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 471 Attachment: Staff Report 3001 SB CPUD 5-13-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 3001 SB CPUD, PUDR-PL20200000386 May 13, 2021 Page 11 of 25 Staff finding: The Land Development Code requires the applicant to create an interconnected street system designed to disperse and reduce the length of automobile trips (4.08.07.J.3.a.iii). In this case, staff finds that an interconnection would provide no real benefit considering the adjacent uses and would result in low or no traffic reduction-benefit. Staff Recommendation: Based on the TIS provided by the applicant, the 2019 and 2020 AUIR, the road network improvements noted above the subject PUD can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. Transportation Planning staff finds this petition consistent with the Transportation Element of the GMP and recommends approval. 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 1.42 acres of native vegetation. A minimum of 0.21 acres (15%) of native vegetation is required to be preserved. GMP Conclusion: The proposed PUD Rezone may not be deemed consistent with the FLUE of the GMP. However, if the companion small-scale Growth Management Plan amendment (GMPA) petition Santa Barbara Boulevard/Golden Gate Parkway Commercial Subdistrict, PL20200000385/CPSS-20-3 is approved, then the subject PUDR may be found consistent with the GMPA. For further information, please refer to companion petition Santa Barbara Boulevard/Golden Gate Parkway Commercial Subdistrict, PL20200000385. STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition, including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in Land Development Code (LDC) Section 10.02.13 B.5., Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the “PUD Findings”), and Section 10.02.08 F., Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as “Rezone Findings”), which establish the legal basis to support the C ollier County Planning Commission’s (CCPC) recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the Board of Collier County Commissioners (BCC), who in turn use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading “Rezone Findings and PUD Findings.” In addition, staff offers the following analysis: Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the petition to address environmental concerns. The required preserve is 0.21 acres (15% of 1.42 acres); the Master Concept Plan provides for a 0.21-acre preserve onsite. No listed animal or plant species were observed on the property. 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 472 Attachment: Staff Report 3001 SB CPUD 5-13-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 3001 SB CPUD, PUDR-PL20200000386 May 13, 2021 Page 12 of 25 This project does not require Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, as this project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. Transportation Review: Transportation planning staff has reviewed the petition for compliance with the Transportation Element of the GMP and with the LDC and can find the petition compliant subject to the development commitments for transportation contained in Exhibit F of the PUD Document. Utilities Review: The project lies within the regional potable water service area and the Golden Gate wastewater service area of the Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD. Water and wastewater services are readily available via connections to existing infrastructure within adjacent rights-of-way. Sufficient water and wastewater treatment capacities are available. Adequate downstream wastewater system capacity must be confirmed at the time of development permit (SDP or PPL) review through a thorough engineering analysis, which will be discussed at a mandatory pre-submittal conference with representatives from the Public Utilities Engineering and Project Management Division and the Growth Management Development Review Division. As stated in subsection 5.a of Exhibit F of the PUD document, any improvements to the Collier County Water-Sewer District’s wastewater collection system necessary to provide sufficient capacity to serve the project will be the responsibility of the owner/developer and will be conveyed to the Collier County Water-Sewer District at no cost to the County at the time of utilities acceptance. Pollution Control Review: The operation of a retail gas station adjacent to residential homes with private drinking water wells creates potential exposure scenarios that could pose a direct threat to human health. The primary concern is contaminated groundwater impacting adjacent residential drinking water wells. Groundwater contamination is common at retail gas stations, and the semi - confined nature of Collier County’s surficial aquifer system creates an increased likelihood that impacts generating from a retail gas station could impact adjacent private drinking water wells. Groundwater can become contaminated from overfill events that occur during retail fueling or tanker delivery, a leaking component of the petroleum storage system, or by the gradual buildup of contaminants of concern within the stormwater management system. The intensity of use associated with facilities with fuel pumps, particularly those open 24 hours, along with the proximity to private drinking water wells appears to be incompatible with surrounding residential land uses. If this use is approved, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. All stormwater inlets must include the installation and maintenance of a hooded outfall to prevent petroleum hydrocarbons from entering the stormwater management system. 2. All dry detention areas must be completed with the bottom of the detention area set three feet above the seasonal high groundwater table elevation. If an alternative stormwater management system is proposed during SDP additional or alternative requirements may be necessary. 3. Any reportable discharge as defined in chapter 62-780, FAC., shall be reported to the State Watch Office or FDEP Office of Emergency Response, and Collier County Pollution Control, no later than 24 hours after the occurrence, and Emergency Response Actions as outlined in 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 473 Attachment: Staff Report 3001 SB CPUD 5-13-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 3001 SB CPUD, PUDR-PL20200000386 May 13, 2021 Page 13 of 25 chapter 62-780, FAC. must commence within 24 hours of any reportable discharge and include collection and analysis of water samples from the residential well(s). 4. The proposed onsite Car Wash will be required to utilize a total recycle system and abide by all requirements and prohibitions listed in chapter 62-660.803, FAC. Equipment must be maintained per manufacturer specification, and all waste disposal records must be retained on- site for 2 years and made available upon request. 5. Conduct a well survey to identify all private drinking water wells within (1,000 feet.). • Conduct baseline sampling of the adjacent residential potable well(s). • Conduct sampling of the adjacent residential potable well(s) following any reportable discharge. o The alternative is to fund adjacent residential utility hook-up (s). The County Impact fee is ($3,300 per house), this does not include water line installation costs. Landscape Review: Although the west buffer is comparable to the buffers required in the Colonades at Santa Barbara PUD, to the north where abutting residential, and the buffer labeled along the Southern boundary of the westernmost three tracts are consistent with the LDC, the buffers abutting Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard are not consistent with the buffers along these same roads in the Colonades at Santa Barbara and the buffer labeled along the Southern boundary of the Easternmost tract would not be consistent with the LDC if this tract is developed with a gas station. For these reasons, and due to the staff recommendation of denial of the companion GMPA, landscape review staff recommends denial. Should the Commission consider approval, landscape review staff recommends approval with the following conditions: 6. In the event that this petition is approved by the BCC, the master plan will need to be updated to allow for a 15-foot wide Type B buffer along the south boundary of the tract where the gas station will be located. 7. In the event that this petition is approved by the BCC, a 25-foot wide landscape buffer will be required along the right of ways, and the trees within these buffers will be required to be a minimum of 12-foot tall with 6-foot spread. Zoning and Land Development Review: FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses. In reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses and intensity on the subject site, the compatibility analysis included a review of the subject proposal comparing it to surrounding or nearby properties as to allowed use intensities and densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location and orientation, architectural features, amount and type of open space and location. Staff believes that the proposed development will be compatible with and complementary to the surrounding land uses. Staff offers the following analysis of this project: The subject site is located within the Residential Estates Subdistrict of the Urban Golden Gate Estates Future Land Use Map. The subject petition is a companion item to the Santa Barbara Boulevard/ Golden Gate Parkway Commercial Subdistrict, PL20200000385. 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 474 Attachment: Staff Report 3001 SB CPUD 5-13-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 3001 SB CPUD, PUDR-PL20200000386 May 13, 2021 Page 14 of 25 The 6.4 acre 3001 SB CPUD is currently zoned Estates and is located within the Residential Estates Subdistrict of the Urban Golden Gate Estates Future Land Use Map. The current Residential Estates Subdistrict does not allow commercial development such as this and there is a companion GMPA, Santa Barbara Boulevard/Golden Gate Parkway Commercial Subdistrict GMPA- PL20200000385. Within the last few years, Community Planning staff has met with the neighboring Estates residents regarding changes to the Community Plan. The residents were adamant about keeping the Golden Gate Parkway corridor “green,” that is to continue to prohibit commercial development on sites such as this that are located within this green corridor. Staff is recommending denial of the companion GMPA. Therefore, staff is recommending denial of the companion 3001 SB CPUD. As previously stated, the petitioner proposes a CPUD to permit 21,500 square feet of C-1 through C-3 commercial land uses, and a C-4 car wash. According to information presented at the Neighborhood Information Meeting and in the Application, an automobile service station is also proposed. The land across Golden Gate Parkway to the north of the proposed 6.5 acre 3001 SB CPUD is undeveloped commercial office land uses within the Collanades CPUD. The land across Santa Barbara Boulevard to the east is a 6.5-acre undeveloped commercial office land uses within the Parkway Center PUD and developed single-family residential dwelling units with a zoning designation of Residential Multi-family (RMF-12). The land to the south of the proposed 3001 SB CPUD is a charter school known as BridgePrep Academy of Collier. The land to the west is developed with a single-family Estates residence. The proposed development is separated from the Estates residence by an average 75-foot wide preserve area. The proposed car wash will be a minimum of 125 feet from the Estates residence to the west. Staff is concerned about the compatibility of a gas station and car wash adjacent to a residential property in the Estates. While a single tunnel car wash is permissible as an accessory use to a gas station, the proposed car wash is a larger, principal use in the C-4 zoning district. This larger facility will have greater noise impacts and negative compatibility impacts with the adjacent Estates residents. Therefore, should the CCPC recommend approval of the subject petition, staff recommends the following Condition of Approval below. Conditions of Approval if a facility with fuel pumps and/or a car wash is approved: 8. A car wash, if developed, shall be limited to an accessory single-bay car wash (C-3) located a minimum of 125 feet from the western boundary and the C-4 car wash land use shall be removed from the permitted uses list in Exhibit A. Conditions of Approval if C-3 land uses are approved: 9. There shall be no outdoor amplified sound between the hours of 9 p.m. and 8 a.m. 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 475 Attachment: Staff Report 3001 SB CPUD 5-13-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 3001 SB CPUD, PUDR-PL20200000386 May 13, 2021 Page 15 of 25 REZONE FINDINGS: Staff offers the following analysis: 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future land use map and the elements of the GMP. The Comprehensive Planning staff has indicated that the proposed PUD Rezone is not consistent with all applicable elements of the FLUE of the GMP. Please refer to the companion GMPA. 2. The existing land use pattern. As described in the “Surrounding Land Use and Zoning” portion of this report and discussed in the zoning review analysis, the neighborhood’s existing land use pattern can be characterized as mostly undeveloped commercial office and developed residential and institutional. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The subject parcel will create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. It is adjacent to an Estates residence, a charter school, and across the street from single-family residences. The subject parcel is also not comparable with expected land uses by virtue of its lack of consistency with the FLUE of the GMP. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The district boundaries are illogically drawn as discussed in Items 2 and 3. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezone necessary. The proposed change is not necessary, but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such changes because the petitioner wishes to develop the property with a gas station, car wash, and C-1 through C-4 land uses. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The proposed change will adversely influence living conditions for the single-family residential dwellings to the west. There will likely be increased noise and light from the proposed use. 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. 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 476 Attachment: Staff Report 3001 SB CPUD 5-13-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 3001 SB CPUD, PUDR-PL20200000386 May 13, 2021 Page 16 of 25 The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project at this time, i.e., the GMP is consistent at the time of rezoning as evaluated as part of the GMP Transportation Element consistency review. Operational impacts will be addressed at the time of the first development order (SDP or Plat). Additionally, the project’s development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. As previously stated, the operation of a retail gas station adjacent to residential homes with private drinking water wells creates potential exposure scenarios that could pose a direct threat to human health. The primary concern is contaminated groundwater impacting adjacent residential drinking water wells. Groundwater contamination is common at retail gas stations, and the semi-confined nature of Collier County’s surficial aquifer system creates an increased likelihood that impacts generating from a retail gas station could impact adjacent private drinking water wells. Groundwater can become contaminated from overfill events that occur during retail fueling or tanker delivery, a leaking component of the petroleum storage system, or by the gradual buildup of contaminants of concern within the stormwater management system. The intensity of use associated with facilities with fuel pumps, particularly those open 24 hours, along with the proximity to private drinking water wells appears to be incompatible with surrounding residential land uses. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. It is anticipated that the proposed PUD Rezone will not reduce light and air to adjacent areas inside or outside the PUD. 10. Whether the proposed change would adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results, which may be internal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning; however, zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market value. However, the adjacent residential landowner to the west has contacted staff via telephone and has expressed concerns related to the depreciation of their home value should the proposed PUD be approved. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. The basic premise underlying all of the development standards in the LDC is that their sound application, when combined with the SDP approval process and PPL process, gives reasonable assurance that a change in zoning will not result in deterrence to improvement or development of adjacent property. Therefore, the proposed zoning change should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 477 Attachment: Staff Report 3001 SB CPUD 5-13-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 3001 SB CPUD, PUDR-PL20200000386 May 13, 2021 Page 17 of 25 The development does not comply with the GMP, which is a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed Rezone constitutes a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The subject property can be used in accordance with existing zoning; however, the proposed uses cannot be achieved without rezoning the property. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county. If Staff’s Conditions of Approval are followed, the proposed PUD Rezone could be deemed as not out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or County. 15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. There may be other sites in the County that could accommodate the uses proposed; however, this is not the determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of a zoning decision. The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC, and staff does not review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. 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 site alteration, and this project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the SDP and/or PPL processes, and as part of the building permit process. 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 GMP and as defined and implemented through the Collier County adequate public facilities ordinance. This petition has been reviewed by County staff responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the amendment process and those staff persons have concluded that no Level of Service will be adversely impacted given the commitments made in the PUD Document. The project will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in LDC Section 6.02.00 regarding Adequate Public Facilities (APF), and the project will need to be consistent with all applicable goals and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities, except as may be exempt by federal 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 478 Attachment: Staff Report 3001 SB CPUD 5-13-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 3001 SB CPUD, PUDR-PL20200000386 May 13, 2021 Page 18 of 25 regulations. This petition has been reviewed by County staff responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the amendment process, and those staff persons have concluded that no Level of Service will be adversely impacted with the commitments contained in the PUD Document. The concurrency review for APF is determined at the time of SDP review. The activity proposed by this amendment will have no impact on public facility adequacy in regard to utilities. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing. PUD FINDINGS: LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5 states that “In support of its recommendation, the CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan’s compliance with the following criteria:” 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. The area is suitable for development from a traffic and access perspective. The property already receives potable water service from the CCWSD, and there is adequate water treatment capacity available for redevelopment as proposed by this petition. A wastewater force main is readily available along the north side of Golden Gate Parkway, and there is adequate wastewater treatment capacity to serve the proposed PUD. However, as previously discussed in the subject staff report, the area is not suitable for the proposed commercial development due to the noise, light, and drainage impacts on the adjacent neighbors. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for Rezones in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Documents submitted with the application provided satisfactory evidence of unified control of the property. Additionally, the development will be required to gain SDP approval. These processes will ensure that appropriate stipulations for the provision of, continuing operation of, and maintenance of infrastructure will be provided by the developer. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP. County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP within the GMP discussion of this staff report. Based on that analysis, staff has found this petition not consistent with the overall GMP. 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 479 Attachment: Staff Report 3001 SB CPUD 5-13-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 3001 SB CPUD, PUDR-PL20200000386 May 13, 2021 Page 19 of 25 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. The proposed landscaping and buffering standards are compatible with most of the adjacent uses. Staff has recommended Conditions of Approval 6 and 7 (listed in the Landscape Review) to address potential incompatibilities along the shared boundaries with residential development. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The amount of open space set aside for this project meets the minimum requirement of the LDC. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. Pursuant to Sec. 134-57(a) of the Collier County Code of Ordinances, availability of potable water and wastewater services must be verified in writing by the CCWSD prior to submittal of construction documents. No public utility facility adequacy issues are anticipated at this time. The roadway infrastructure is sufficient to serve the proposed project, as noted in the Transportation Element consistency review. Operational impacts will be addressed at the time of the 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. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The area has adequate supporting infrastructure, including readily available County water and wastewater mains, to accommodate this project. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. This criterion essentially requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards and deviations proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. The petitioner is seeking five deviations related to canopy signs, building setbacks, and landscaping. Please, refer to the Deviation Discussion portion of the staff report below for a more extensive examination of the deviations. 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 480 Attachment: Staff Report 3001 SB CPUD 5-13-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 3001 SB CPUD, PUDR-PL20200000386 May 13, 2021 Page 20 of 25 Deviation Discussion: The petitioner is seeking five deviations from the requirements of the LDC. The deviations are directly extracted from PUD Exhibit F. The petitioner’s rationale, and staff analysis/recommendation are outlined below. Deviation #1 “Deviation 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.05.05.C.4.b., “Signage for Facilities with Fuel Pumps- Canopy Sign Area”, which limits the maximum sign area for the canopy to one twelve (12) square foot corporate logo to instead allow one fifty (50) square foot corporate logo on the north canopy front façade facing Golden Gate Parkway and two-thirty (30) square foot corporate logo signs on the side facades facing east to Santa Barbara Boulevard and west facing the adjacent commercial parcel, if a convenience store with fuel pumps is developed on the easternmost tract within the PUD.” Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc. does not have a corporate logo similar to some other corporate gas station companies. The corporate logo for RaceTrac is their name and limiting their logo to the allowed twelve (12) square feet results in an 8.4’ wide sign with 1.4’ high letters. With their letter-size reduced the sign would be difficult to read on the canopy and possibly unrecognizable, if a convenience store with fuel pumps is developed on the easternmost tract within the PUD. In addition, RaceTrac wishes to have a recognizable appearance in Collier County. Color banding is prohibited; therefore, it is important that their logo on the fuel canopy be recognizable. This recognition is important for motorist traveling on Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard who wish to enter the RaceTrac. The signage needs to be recognizable from a distance so drivers can safely maneuver as needed to enter the Project. Both roadways in front of the project are 6-lane major arterial roadways. With speeds under green light conditions approaching 50 MPH, vehicles travel nearly 75 feet per second. Allowing the drivers to recognize the destination in time to safely maneuver to the needed turning movements is a critical element of the canopy signage. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Land Development Review 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 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 the literal application of such regulations.” Deviation #2 “Deviation 2 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.05.05.C.4.b., “Signage for Facilities with Fuel Pumps- Canopy Sign Location”, which only allows canopy signs on the canopy face that is adjacent to a right-of-way to instead allow a canopy sign on the west side of the fuel canopy not adjacent to a 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 481 Attachment: Staff Report 3001 SB CPUD 5-13-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 3001 SB CPUD, PUDR-PL20200000386 May 13, 2021 Page 21 of 25 right-of-way in addition to the permitted canopy signs, if a convenience store with fuel pumps is developed on the easternmost tract within the PUD.” Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc. has frontage on both Golden Gate Parkway to the north and Santa Barbara Boulevard to the east. Canopy signage is proposed along each of these rights-of-way and a canopy sign is also proposed on the west side of the fuel canopy. Although the west side of the fuel canopy is not adjacent to a right-of-way, the wide Golden Gate Parkway right-of-way and larger buffer required for facilities with fuel pumps limit the view to potential east -bound customers on Golden Gate Parkway until they are close to passing the site. In addition, RaceTrac is not allowed a color band on the fuel canopy and the proposed sign on the west-facing canopy allows potential customers to see the store sooner giving them more time to make necessary lane changes to safely enter the site. The front canopy signage is relatively close and parallel to the roadway. In this alignment, the motorist’s view, detecting, and reading a sign is generally restricted to quick sideways glances as the sign is approached and the angle of view becomes more constricted. The proposed signs on the ends of the canopy are to allow the preferred perpendicular signage, which can be recognized much easier by drivers. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommend APPROVAL, 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 the literal application of such regulations.” Deviation #3 “Deviation 3 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.05.05.B.1., “Facilities with Fuel Pumps-Table of Site Design Requirements”, which establishes the minimum side and rear setbacks for all structures as 40 feet to instead allow for the side and rear yard setbacks internal to the PUD boun dary to be reduced to 25 feet. This deviation is applicable only to internal parcel boundaries and is not applicable to side and rear yard setbacks measured to the PUD boundary.” Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: The reduction in the requirements for internal rear yard setbacks will provide the developer greater flexibility in land planning the parcels. The proposed deviation will not impact external property owners as it is only applicable to internal parcel boundaries. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommend APPROVAL, 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 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 482 Attachment: Staff Report 3001 SB CPUD 5-13-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 3001 SB CPUD, PUDR-PL20200000386 May 13, 2021 Page 22 of 25 the deviation is “justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to the literal application of such regulations.” Deviation #4 “Deviation 4 seeks relief from LDC 4.06.02, Table 2.4, footnote 3, Buffer Requirements, which allows for the required buffer between commercial outparcels to be shared with a total width of 15 feet (7.5 feet on each parcel) to instead allow for shared buffers between commercial outparcels to have a minimum required width of ten feet (five feet on each parcel).” Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: This deviation would provide for greater flexibility in parcel layouts and will create better ability for pedestrian movement between outparcels. The limitation in internal buffer width between commercial outparcels. The internal buffering between two outparcels will not impact the residential dwelling located west of the CPUD, as the project will be providing an average 75 - foot wide buffer along the western PUD boundary with a Type ‘B’ Buffer opacity. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommend APPROVAL, 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 the literal application of such regulations.” Deviation #5 “Deviation 5 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.05.D.2., “Plant Material Standards”, which requires all required new individual trees, shall be species having an average mature spread or crown of greater than 20 feet in the Collier County area and having trunk(s) which can be maintained in a clean condition over five feet of clear wood. Trees adjacent to walkways, bike paths, and rights-of- way shall be maintained in a clean condition over eight feet of clear wood. Trees having an average mature spread or crown less than 20 feet may be substituted by grouping the same so as to create the equivalent of a 20-foot crown spread. For code-required trees, the trees at the time of installation shall be a minimum of 25 gallons, ten feet in height, have a 1¾-inch caliper (at 12 inches above the ground) and a four-foot spread to instead allow the trees planted within the reduced buffers between outparcels to have less than a 20-foot spread and without the need to provide them in groupings. The balance of trees required in the outparcel buffers will be provided for within the PUD western perimeter buffer.” Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: This deviation will be in conjunction with the deviation which permits the reduction in buffer widths between outparcels. This will allow the internal buffers to be planted in a manner that will promote the healthy growth of the vegetation within the unified plan of development. There 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 483 Attachment: Staff Report 3001 SB CPUD 5-13-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 3001 SB CPUD, PUDR-PL20200000386 May 13, 2021 Page 23 of 25 is no net reduction in trees as the deviation requires the overall number to be achieved with plantings in the wider PUD western perimeter buffer. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommend APPROVAL, 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 the literal application of such regulations.” Deviation #6 “Deviation 6 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.02.24.C., “Corridor Management Overlay District (CMO)—Special Regulations for Properties Abutting Golden Gate Parkway West of Santa Barbara Boulevard and Goodlette-Frank Road South of Pine Ridge Road”, which establishes Corridor Management Overlay standards for properties on Golden Gate Parkway west of Santa Barbara Boulevard and provides for property identification signs standards, to instead allow property identification signage for facilities with fuel pumps to utilize signage standards as specified in LDC 5.05.05.C.4., signage for facilities with fuel pumps.” Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: One of the proposed uses within the PUD is a facility with fuel pumps. The County spent a great deal of time creating specific criteria for facilities with fuel pumps, including signage. Facilities with fuel pumps have the need to provide signage other than property identification signage as a service to motorists. Utilizing the provisions of LDC 5.05.05.C.4. will make the proposed use consistent with the most current criteria established by Collier County for this use. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The applicant conducted a NIM Meeting on August 13, 2020, at Parkway Life Church, located at 5975 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida. The residents and the Agent/Applicant discussed the proposal along with concerns related to noise from the car wash and increased traffic from the proposed car wash and gas station. For further information, see Attachment B-NIM Transcript. Letters of Objection have also been received. Please see Attachment B-1-Letters of Objection. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office has reviewed the Staff Report for this petition on April 30, 2021. RECOMMENDATION: Planning and Zoning Review staff recommends that the CCPC forward Petition PUDR- PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD to the BCC with a recommendation of denial. As the use is inconsistent with the GMP. 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 484 Attachment: Staff Report 3001 SB CPUD 5-13-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 3001 SB CPUD, PUDR-PL20200000386 May 13, 2021 Page 24 of 25 However, should the CCPC consider approval of the CPUD, staff recommends the following Conditions of Approval below. Conditions of Approval if a facility with fuel pumps and/or a car wash is approved: 1. All stormwater inlets must include the installation and maintenance of a hooded outfall to prevent petroleum hydrocarbons from entering the stormwater management system. 2. All dry detention areas must be completed with the bottom of the detention area set three feet above the seasonal high groundwater table elevation. If an alternative stormwater management system is proposed during SDP additional or alternative requirements may be necessary. 3. Any reportable discharge as defined in chapter 62-780, FAC., shall be reported to the State Watch Office or FDEP Office of Emergency Response, and Collier County Pollution Control, no later than 24 hours after the occurrence, and Emergency Response Actions as outlined in chapter 62- 780, FAC. must commence within 24 hours of any reportable discharge and include collection and analysis of water samples from the residential well(s). 4. The proposed onsite Car Wash will be required to utilize a total recycle system and abide by all requirements and prohibitions listed in chapter 62-660.803, FAC. Equipment must be maintained per manufacturer specification, and all waste disposal records must be retained on-site for 2 years and made available upon request. 5. Conduct a well survey to identify all private drinking water wells within (1,000 feet.). • Conduct baseline sampling of the adjacent residential potable well(s). • Conduct sampling of the adjacent residential potable well(s) following any reportable discharge. o Alternative is to fund adjacent residential utility hook-up (s). The County Impact fee is ($3,300 per house), this does not include water line installation costs. 6. In the event that this petition is approved by the BCC, the master plan will need to be updated to allow for a 15-foot Type B buffer along the south boundary of the tract where the gas station will be located. 7. In the event that this petition is approved by the BCC, a 25-foot wide landscape buffer will be required along the right of ways, and the trees within these buffers will be required to be a minimum of 12 feet tall with a 6-foot spread. 8. A car wash, if developed, shall be limited to an accessory single-bay car wash (C-3) located a minimum of 125 feet from the western boundary and the C-4 car wash land use shall be removed from the permitted uses list in Exhibit A. 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 485 Attachment: Staff Report 3001 SB CPUD 5-13-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 3001 SB CPUD, PUDR-PL20200000386 May 13, 2021 Page 25 of 25 Conditions of Approval if C-3 land uses are approved: 9. There shall be no outdoor amplified sound between the hours of 9 p.m. and 8 a.m. Attachments: Attachment A - Proposed PUD Ordinance Attachment B - NIM Transcript Attachment B-1-Letters of Objection Attachment C - Application 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 486 Attachment: Staff Report 3001 SB CPUD 5-13-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) Page 1 of 1 SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION – ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT - PLANNING & REGULATION HEARING DATE: JUNE 17, 2021 SUBJECT: PUDR-PL20200000386, 3001 SB COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CPUD) The 3001 SB CPUD was continued from the May 20, 2021, CCPC hearing to the June 17, 2021, CCPC hearing by the petitioner to address neighborhood issues. It has come to staff’s attention that the proposed SB CPUD is located adjacent to a school playground along its southern boundary. Staff notes that a 20-foot wide Type C landscape buffer is required between an automobile service station and a school. Therefore, the Condition of Approval number 6 has been revised (for a facility with fuel pumps and/or a car wash) to state the following: 6. A 20-foot Type C landscape buffer shall be provided along the south boundary of the tract where the gas station and/or car wash is located. A new Condition of Approval number 10 has been added (related to the C-3 land uses) and states the following: 10. A 15-foot Type B landscape buffer shall be provided along the southern property line. 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 487 Attachment: SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT 6-3-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 488 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Ordinance - 04-28-21(3) (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 489 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Ordinance - 04-28-21(3) (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 490 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Ordinance - 04-28-21(3) (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 491 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Ordinance - 04-28-21(3) (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 492 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Ordinance - 04-28-21(3) (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 493Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Ordinance - 04-28-21(3) (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 494Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Ordinance - 04-28-21(3) (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 495 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Ordinance - 04-28-21(3) (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 496 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Ordinance - 04-28-21(3) (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 497 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Ordinance - 04-28-21(3) (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 498 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Ordinance - 04-28-21(3) (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 499 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Ordinance - 04-28-21(3) (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 500 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Ordinance - 04-28-21(3) (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 501 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Ordinance - 04-28-21(3) (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) PL20200000385 Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict and PL20200000386 3001 SB CPUD Rezone, August 13, 2020 NIM Page 1 of 12 Wayne Arnold: Well, good evening everybody. My name is Wayne Arnold, and I'm a planner with Q. Grady Minor & Associates, representing the applicant Racetrac, tonight. Have several people from our team that are present. We have Rich Yovanovich, who is the land use council. We have Yury Bykau from TR Transportation, our transportation consultant. We have Peninsula Engineering and Bruce Layman here is our environmental consultant. And this is Sharon Umpenhour, who is going to be taping and helping us with the presentation. This is also available on Zoom. We had some of the County participants are participating via Zoom and our applicant is in Atlanta tonight and couldn't make it down to Naples, so he's participating by Zoom. If there are questions, we're hoping that the audio works well enough. If not all, whatever comments are made on the computer, if we can't hear them on the audio here, I'll be happy to repeat those and we'll make sure the records um, available for everybody. Sharon's going to be also recording this. We have to provide a transcript of this meeting to the County; it's just part of the review process. Tom Hardy with Racetrac and Cleo Chang from Racetrac are both on Zoom and are available here to listen in and offer any comments as necessary. From the County, it looks like signed in, we have Nancy Gundlach, who's the principal planner in zoning, who's handling the zoning application. And Anita Jenkins – she's in charge of both zoning and planning for the County. She's here, I think, representing the conference planning site tonight for the plan amendment application that's also a companion to the zoning application. With that, Connie, if you want to just advance that to the aerial location map. So, we're here representing two applications tonight. As I mentioned, there's a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment to the Golden Gate area master plan that we're proposing. It does two things. One, there are two provisions. One of them directly affects this property. Well, they both directly affect this property, but 6.4 acres, church is existing on the site, has been for many, many years. We're proposing to create a new planning sub-district that would allow this to be commercial, in addition to the church. The application that we're proposing would allow for us to have C3 type commercial uses, as well as limited C4 general commercial uses, one of which we've identified could be a carwash. So, that's the comp plan designation we would create. There's a companion zoning amendment that would change the zoning from E-Estates to a planned unit development for commercial development. We have a master plan that I'll walk you through momentarily. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 502 Attachment: Attachment B-NIM Trancript 8-13-2020 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) PL20200000385 Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict and PL20200000386 3001 SB CPUD Rezone, August 13, 2020 NIM Page 2 of 12 But there are two applications. Right now, the Golden Gate master plan does not permit true commercial development on the site. Frankly, it doesn't even permit a church by standard. The only thing that's permitted here is one house per two and a quarter acres. Given the location of this at the intersection of Santa Barbara and Golden Gate, two six lane roads. The intersection is huge; it's not likely that anybody's going to put a single-family home on that location. So, we're in the review process now. This is a required meeting by the County. Once we submitted our applications and they've had a chance to review them, we then have an opportunity to come out to the community and hold a neighborhood meeting to tell you what we're doing, obtain some input from you. If you have any questions or comments, then those comments are recorded and they're provided on to the County staff, as well as the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners for them to have as part of the public hearing process. This is not a public hearing tonight. This is an informational meeting. There will be a Planning Commission hearing in several months, when we get through the sufficiency review of our applications, and then that's followed by a Board of County Commissioner action that would take final action to either approve or deny or approve with conditions what were proposing. Connie, if you could move that along to the next one. This is another location exhibit. It shows you that – I'm sure most of you must be familiar or neighbors to the property, but the church property is existing. We have the school, obviously, now to the South. Um, we have commercial and residential to the East. And then, of course we have the States Residential West of us, and then to the North is the undeveloped property that's been zoned for some time for office and medical office uses. Do you want to advance that, Connie? I appreciate it. This is just a highlight slide telling you that we were are in for two applications, as I mentioned, an amendment to the master plan for Golden Gate, and it a zoning change to change it from E-Estates to a commercial plan development. It's known as a project named 3001 Santa Barbara commercial. It's about 6.4 acres in size. Next slide please, Connie. Again, so to reiterate, the small-scale amendment application would allow us to have a maximum of 21,500 square feet of commercial uses on the site, as well as the C3 and limited C4 uses. Then the rezoning we carry forward those same things with a maximum 21,500 square feet of commercial land usage. And what we have on the next page is the actual sub-district language. Connie, if you don't mind moving that slide. This is the 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 503 Attachment: Attachment B-NIM Trancript 8-13-2020 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) PL20200000385 Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict and PL20200000386 3001 SB CPUD Rezone, August 13, 2020 NIM Page 3 of 12 formality of what would get inserted into the Golden Gate master plan that says we have to rezone this to a PUD. We're restricted to a maximum of 21,500 square feet. We have to make sure that our PUD accommodates appropriate buffer setbacks dimensional standards, which would be setbacks in building heights, et cetera. And then, there's also language that restricts this to C1 through C3 commercial uses and limited C4 uses. Next slide, Connie. This is how the permitted use section is setup in the PUD. We've identified that we're allowed to do all the C1 through C3 commercial, which is the office commercial through intermediate commercial uses, as well as limited C4. Right now, we've identified car washes as one of those C4 uses we know. We're still reviewing to make sure that there's not others that we need to have, but we'll certainly – anybody who's here tonight would like to make sure we have contact information if you signed in on the sign in sheet, or you want to provide Sharon your name, or there's other contact information at the end where you can log in and view this in real time as it goes through the review process, to see what things may change as we go through the review. Next slide, Connie. Sort of Unique to several projects in Golden Gate, we've come up with a long list of prohibited uses, because neighbors have formally said, well, there's a lot of uses in C1 through C3, or even C4, that we certainly don't want to see. So, we started creating a list of prohibited uses, and this has health services, day labor type things. We've prohibited soup kitchens and homeless shelters, hospitals and specialty hospitals for psychiatric care and drug rehabilitation, and things of that nature. Those are all prohibited. That's a list that we have that are things that we can't do on the site. Next slide, Connie. This is our conceptual master plan. We're working to add more detail to this, but at this moment, this is where we are. So, on the top of the page is Golden Gate Parkway. To the right side of the page is Santa Barbara Boulevard. We're proposing to have two access points on Golden Gate and have one access point on the far South end of our property on Santa Barbara. The access points, we're negotiating those with Collier County Transportation staff right now. We're hopeful that we can get a left directional access into the site, which would put it probably on the far Western portion of the property. Internally there will probably be a series of frontage roads and connecting roads so you can travel from Golden Gate Parkway and then onto Santa Barbara Boulevard. And we have a small water management area we're proposing and some of the native vegetation that's onsite will be 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 504 Attachment: Attachment B-NIM Trancript 8-13-2020 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) PL20200000385 Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict and PL20200000386 3001 SB CPUD Rezone, August 13, 2020 NIM Page 4 of 12 mitigated offsite. There's a small cluster of trees that really don't function as habitat or tree clusters so we'll be either making those trees up onsite or we'll be going offsite to mitigate for those. But internally we've provided– It's hard to see on this screen, unfortunately, but probably the most intense use would be limited to the corner. And then, we have three other potential lots that are part of that. So, four total lots we're looking at for the property. Next slide, Connie. This is probably hard to see on this screen. The clarity's not great, but this is the master plan that I was just showing you overlaid on an aerial photograph so you can get an idea of just how it relates to the current improvements and what's around us. And again, showing the access points with arrows on there, we have a 25 to 30-foot wide buffer on our western boundary. And it's varied because we've asked for a couple of deviations that – for an internal buffer in between out parcels, if we utilize that and put in narrower internal buffers, we have to increase the buffer on our western property boundary to 30 feet. So, it would be in flux somewhere between 25 and 30 feet. Connie, next slide, please. Our PUD also contains development standards. This is what I referred to with those dimensional criteria that we have. We've identified required setbacks from Golden Gate and Santa Barbara, as well as our western PUD boundary. We've established maximum building heights and minimum structure sizes as well as our total maximum square feet of 21,500 that I previously mentioned. Next slide, Connie. So, we have a few deviations that are related to signage. These are specific to gas station user that have been approved for other sites around Collier County. I'm not going to go through the details of them, but they're signage for facilities with fuel pumps, and they are to allow – really the way the county structured the code and, Rich, you've done all of them so I think if you need to answer this, feel free to jump in, but these are – the county's code is really specific and was very generic. Racetrac in this example has a very specific program for signage that they've used and would like to use here as well. So, that's what those deviations will allow us to do. Next slide, please. These were the landscape deviations, and this would allow us to have internal lesser setbacks between out parcel users while putting the larger buffer to the external side of the western side of the property, as well as putting different sized trees in. And that was something that staff had asked us to do as part of the deviation request. Next slide, please. So, the presentation, it's a very quick overview but this is some contact information, and I'll just leave that up for a 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 505 Attachment: Attachment B-NIM Trancript 8-13-2020 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) PL20200000385 Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict and PL20200000386 3001 SB CPUD Rezone, August 13, 2020 NIM Page 5 of 12 moment. And this tells you how you can access these documents and our application materials online through either our GradyMinor.com website or collier county's web portal that they have, which is available on their city view site. I'm not sure if any of you all go to the county government website, but through their development review, you can go on and look at our application as well as all the submittal documents that we make, all the staff comments that are made. And our next steps after that will be to – you'll see, once we get through the next probably two or three months worth of reviews with staff, we'll get to a point where they tell us we're ready to go to a planning commission hearing. So, then that's the point at which you'll see the four by eight signs you've seen at other places be posted on the site. And those would have the dates of the hearings. If you received a mail notice for this meeting, you should receive a mail notice from Collier County for those public hearings as well. And as I said, the final action would be taken by the Board of County Commissioners, but we don't have firm hearing dates established for those yet. So, with that, I'll end my presentation and try to entertain questions. And then, like I said, we have Tom Hardy from Racetrac who can answer questions, Rich, financial questions, or if you have traffic questions, we can deal with them, too. Sharon Umpenhour: You don't think we'll need to use the microphone? Wayne: Yeah. I'm not sure exactly how some – I think the other microphone – just so we can make sure everybody hears, if we wouldn't mind speaking into the microphone. If you can come forward and maybe try not to touch it. That way we can try to be as sanitary as possible. But if you wouldn't mind coming forward to ask a question, and one of the things that the county has asked us to do is to make sure that– And if you don't want to reveal your name, that's okay. But they want to try to distinguish when they read a transcript, whether it's me speaking or one of the applicant's team that's speaking versus a member of the public. So, if you feel comfortable giving your name, feel free. If you don't, just say I'm a member of the public, and here's my question or comment. So, with that, if anybody has any questions raise your hand or make your way to the microphone that Sharon placed over here on the side, and we will try to capture everything. No? Somebody's got to have a question or comment. There we go. Okay. Eric Hope: Hello, I'm Eric. I'm a neighbor here. My only question is with the boundary line of their proposed plan, but it's right up on somebody's driveway. Is there any plan to do some kind of sound 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 506 Attachment: Attachment B-NIM Trancript 8-13-2020 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) PL20200000385 Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict and PL20200000386 3001 SB CPUD Rezone, August 13, 2020 NIM Page 6 of 12 wall or some kind of major block? Because that would be really annoying to me if I live right next door to that. Wayne: Well, the county's buffering standards – I think it's a Type B buffer that's required, and it requires at least a test requirement. I don't know that we've gotten far enough along in our planning to know that we've got a sound wall or anything like that planned, but certainly the applicant's listening in and hearing your comments as well, so. [Crosstalk] Wayne: Thank you. Yes, sir. Bill Desaro: Hi, I'm Bill Desaro. On slide 11, the traffic pattern – Wayne: Can you come back to that, Connie? Slide 11, please. Bill: On the top of the screen there, it shows a turn in from the westbound lane. That's a significant concern. If anybody that lives close by this corner knows that the traffic going eastbound at any given time, especially during rush hour, stacks up back to 58th Street. Um, so to try to make – and plus, when that turn lane going north um, is backed up, and that's a red light for the turn lane, green light going east on Golden Gate Parkway. People coming westbound would be trying to cross over a red light, stopped traffic, and then a green-lighted other three lanes of traffic doing high rate of speed – just let's face it. On Golden Gate Parkway, people do 60 miles an hour easily all day long. So, if you're trying to go from the westbound lane, cut across 60 miles an hour traffic after trying to cut through people that are sitting there parked, waiting for the light to change, I really hope the county is going to reconsider that because that's – people are going to die there. I think that's just definite. And then, after a couple of accidents happen, then they'll probably change it. So, hopefully they're proactive in taking measures to not allow some – we have enough people that come down that way and turn around at 58th and go back on Golden Gate Parkway. Most of us would be more okay with that even though it's not optimum solution either, but that turn in on the top part of the page there is, in my opinion, just not an option. Wayne: Yeah, and we're through our first review with the county, and I don't think that they have blessed any part of the application yet. So, I appreciate your comments, and we'll certainly … the county 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 507 Attachment: Attachment B-NIM Trancript 8-13-2020 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) PL20200000385 Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict and PL20200000386 3001 SB CPUD Rezone, August 13, 2020 NIM Page 7 of 12 staff is listening and I'm sure they're taking notes on that as well. Bill: I have another question of you. Wayne: Sure. Bill: I know that you're at the beginning of this whole process, do you have a um, potential site plan or layout of how this is going to potentially lay out on the property? Wayne: We are working on that. Racetrac Petroleum is looking at that. Obviously, we think that the gas station component, if they move ahead with that, would be on the corner parcel. And orientation, obviously of the pump and canopy islands would face either Santa Barbara or Golden Gate, one of the two. I mean, we've all driven past a number of these – Bill: Of course. I mean, I go to a Racetrac every day at work. I have no issue with them as a corporation. They're great. The manager that I speak to every morning to get coffee is awesome. I know that they do a nice job with their buildings and maintain everything well. So, that's not the concern I don't think for any of us. I don't think the concern really is that we don't want it. I don't know. It's not necessarily a bad thing to bring it to the area. It could be a nice little anchor as opposed to the church that's just sitting there kind of deteriorating. But, I think the major concern is obviously traffic. We have enough traffic as it is. Not sure that this is going to bring really any more or less, to be honest. But um, for people that live um, near the boundaries on the um, west side, also on the north side, even on the south side, any of the boundaries, um, we would be concerned with how the building lays out simply because of um, the time of day. You know, if the car wash opens at 7:00 a.m. you got those big blowers. It's configured in a manner where let's just say towards the west, you have the exit for the car wash. I'm not saying this is how it's going to be, but potentially if it is, you have a person coming out of a car wash at 7:00 a.m. big blowers going, vacuum area, vacuums are running. That kind of thing. Also, if it's configured a certain way, Racetrac has a dumpster. I'm sure that the carting companies come early in the morning, 5:30 in the morning, whatever, pick up the dumpsters. Our concern and I speak for a couple people that I know and speak to, that would be a concern. If and when the whole process takes place, that they would consider our input in terms of how they can configure things that would be less intrusive into our daily life. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 508 Attachment: Attachment B-NIM Trancript 8-13-2020 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) PL20200000385 Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict and PL20200000386 3001 SB CPUD Rezone, August 13, 2020 NIM Page 8 of 12 Wayne: Absolutely. I know that they will, and I know staff will demand that as well. I appreciate your comments so much. Sharon: What was your name, sir? Bill: Bill Desario. Wayne: Thank you. Anything else? Bill: I think it's good. Wayne: Okay. Bill: For the moment. Wayne: You can come back to it. Bill: Thank you. Appreciate it. Wayne: Yes, ma'am. Robin McDonald: – I actually have two concerns. One is that Golden Gate Parkway was supposed to be a green exit, no gas stations, no fast food, so on and so forth. My concern is that this is going to crack the door to other things along the exit, McDonalds, Burger Kings, so on and so forth. The other concern is your right next to a school and you're serving alcohol. I don't think that's a very good idea. Wayne: Okay. Well, thank you for that. Sharon: What was your name, ma'am? Robin: Robin McDonald. Wayne: The County – this is Wayne Arnold, just so the record can catch that, the county does have standards for consumption on premises. If it's served in a setting such as a restaurant or something, they aren't allowed within 500 feet of schools and churches and things like that. We couldn't have a standalone bar or things like that, but consumption on the premises is permitted. We added language to the code that says that we're basically entitled to have that because there are, obviously, enough convenience gas stations that all sell beer, wine, et cetera. That, obviously, is a component if the gas station component moves ahead. Just to be clear on that. The other, with regard to your green comment, the county does severely limit 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 509 Attachment: Attachment B-NIM Trancript 8-13-2020 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) PL20200000385 Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict and PL20200000386 3001 SB CPUD Rezone, August 13, 2020 NIM Page 9 of 12 the commercial along this corridor. They didn't want commercial right at the interchange. Rich worked for David Lawrence for instance. He's been here for almost 30 years at their location. To expand, it took a comprehensive plan amendment and a lot of time and effort to get them to expand the bingo hall to work on as well, and that was a similar item. So, it's not an easy process to do that. This is two miles from the interstate. I'm not quite sure where they are replacing non-residential use today. Wayne: Yes ma'am. Richard Yovanovich: Just too, Wayne to add. I don't know if this was your comment or not. Richard Yovanovich for the record make sure the Plan Commission knows who it is. There's a prohibition in the comprehensive plan at the interstate to prohibit any commercial uses at the interstate. Was that what your comment was referring to because that's where it's absolutely prohibited? Robin: Originally when they were talking about – because I've been here since before the exchange, is they said that from the Livingston, which wasn't even there anymore. At that time, it was Airport Road and Santa Barbara, that there would be nothing commercial, that churches were allowed. Um, David Lawrence was already existing so that was the church on the corner – Richard: No, I know. You're absolutely right. The comprehensive plan. Robin: And the bridge club. All of that was already there. Richard: They've been here forever, yeah. Female Speaker: So, why don't we have a gas station here? Richard: Well, what – Robin: It was said that it would stay green from the Santa Barbara to Airport Road. No convenience, no gas station, no fast food. Richard: If I can, I'll briefly say and then Wayne can take over. A woman from the audience asked, why are we asking for gas station? Why are we asking to change this corner? Female Speaker: Right, especially with the car wash. Richard: I understand the car wash comment. I think the reality is, and I've been here 30 years and you guys probably here at least that long, if 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 510 Attachment: Attachment B-NIM Trancript 8-13-2020 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) PL20200000385 Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict and PL20200000386 3001 SB CPUD Rezone, August 13, 2020 NIM Page 10 of 12 not longer. I used to live in the apartments right by the county park on this street, so I'm very familiar with this area. I don't think anybody envisioned how big this intersection became from two six-lane roads. I mean, it's got to be, if it's not the largest intersection in Collier County, it's got to be pretty close to one of the biggest intersections. This property, I think we all have to acknowledge, is not an appropriate residential piece of property. Just like we went through the same change, Wayne and I worked on, I’m directionally challenged, the northwest quadrant right across the street. I think people acknowledged that was not an appropriate residential piece of property either. We are going through this process because there are some exceptions to that general rule that you didn't want to have a long corridor of non- residential uses on the Golden Gate Parkway. That's why we're going through this process because I think that with the change of circumstances surrounding this intersection. I don't think it's an appropriate residential piece of property. That's why we don't think Robin: There's actually been several new residences built along the Parkway. Richard: Oh, I don't doubt that. Robin: It just seems to be the right person who would want it, and there's already an existing church. So, that's an expense. That's probably why somebody hasn't approached that for the property. Richard: Well, it's – I can tell you, I think that. I don't know who that buyer is that wants to live on a six-lane by six-lane intersection. I agree further up and down Golden Gate Parkway, you can properly buffer yourself and make sure you have easier access to the property now. I don't think this is that site that really lends itself to residential. Wayne: Thank you. Ma'am, want to go ahead? Leighanne Dietrich: Yeah. My name Leighanne Dietrich. I'm concerned about the – back to Bill Desaro's question, that entrance there and exit, ingress, egress I'm afraid that when you do that, you'll block off turning left into 58th Street Southwest, which is where I live. And I don't want it to end up like they did 70th Street, where you have to go – I don't even know how far you have to go. Eric Hope: You have to go to a back road to get to another road – Leighanne: Yeah. That would really tick me off. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 511 Attachment: Attachment B-NIM Trancript 8-13-2020 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) PL20200000385 Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict and PL20200000386 3001 SB CPUD Rezone, August 13, 2020 NIM Page 11 of 12 Sharon: What's your name, ma'am? Leighanne: Leighanne Dietrich. Wayne: Thank you. Anybody else have questions or comments? No? If you don't then we'll adjourn the meeting. Sharon: Do you want to ask our Zoom participants? Wayne: Do you have any, do you have any comments or questions you want to make or Nancy or Anita? Do you have any comments you need to make? Nancy Gundlach: Thank you for your presentation. Thank you to all the attendees who came out tonight. Wayne: Thank you. It sounds like we just had a rain shower. Sharon: Could you hear us okay? Wayne: Thank you for coming out. Nancy: Yes. Wayne: Good. Thank you, Nancy. Thank you with that, are we adjourned? Thank you all. Female Speaker: I have one question; does the car wash have to go with it? Can't we just not have a car wash, if we have to have a gas station? Wayne: Well, we think the carwash kind of goes hand in hand with a gas station. Female Speaker: But this is Golden Gate – Richard: I understand, that’s why we have these meetings. Let us go back and talk to our client. Female Speaker: Please, no car wash, it's going to be bad enough as it is for those of us who use Golden Gate Parkway continuously. We have no choice. I tried to get in a neighbor here. Wayne: And as Rich mentioned, that's why we have these meetings to share with you and hear your concerns so we'll be talking to our client. 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 512 Attachment: Attachment B-NIM Trancript 8-13-2020 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) PL20200000385 Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict and PL20200000386 3001 SB CPUD Rezone, August 13, 2020 NIM Page 12 of 12 Female Speaker: I'm totally against the whole thing the gas station, the carwash is even worse. Bill: Okay. The other car wash aspect to it would be that there's a brand new one right at Berkshire. There's also brand new renovated one down the street. The level wash, the biggest, knocked down that building, fully completed, renovated that. That's a brand new carwash. Its just a little bit east, maybe a mile or so east. And then, you have the other one that's a little bit south. Wayne: We're still recording this by the way, just to make sure we're– if you don't mind coming to the microphone, just to make sure it's there, appreciate it. Bill: The car wash issue. I'll just reiterate what I said, so that everybody can hear. It would be something to take into consideration for the project developer and the owner. Being that we have a brand-new carwash, maybe a mile or so, right at Berkshire Plaza next to Publix. There's also a brand new one that they fully renovated about a mile East into Golden Gate City, a little bit, about a brand new Lava wash there. So, you would have three car washes within probably a two square mile area. All brand new competing for business. I'm all for competition and driving prices of car washes down, that would be fine by me. But, I'm not sure as a business venture for somebody that would be a smart idea. Unless you come in with the king of car washes and just blow everybody else out of the water. And then, the other issue after that, down the road would be what happens if they put the other two car washes out of business? It seems you know like we have enough car washes, that wouldn't be ultimately my decision. It would be a concern, certainly a noise concern from residents locally. That's why I was concerned about the configuration of the buildings on the property, in which way they face the residences and all that. Wayne: Okay. Thank you. Appreciate your comments on that. Anything else? If not, adjourned. Thank you all very much. Sharon: Okay. We're saying goodbye now. [End of Audio] Duration: 28 minutes 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 513 Attachment: Attachment B-NIM Trancript 8-13-2020 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) Good afternoon, My name is Thomas Salzmann and I live at 5720 Golden Gate Pkwy Naples, FL 34116 along with my wife Susan. Susan and I purchased our home in 1995. For 25 years we have been making this location our perfect home, raising two children, and having a home office for our company. In our 25 years of being at this property adjacent to the church all we hear are church gatherings, people singing, and music. Now, we are starting to get a little older and can finally enjoy some of the fruits of our labor with our small piece of paradise. That all came to a halt when we received a notification that RaceTrac wants to develop the corner adjacent to our property. However, this idea should not even be entertained due to the conflict with the Golden Gate Area Master Plan which prevents such commercial growth between Goodlette Road and Santa Barbara Blvd. Attached below is an excerpt from the Master Plan referencing the conflict. The way that this is being circumvented is that the property on the corner has a Santa Barbara address (3001 Santa Barbara Blvd.) despite a the property in question having only approximately 390’ of frontage along Santa Barbara Blvd and approximately 712’ of frontage along Golden Gate Pkwy; a clear majority. GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN Policy 5.2.3: Recognizing the residential nature of the land uses surrounding the I -75 interchange at Golden Gate Parkway, as well as the restrictions on conditional uses of the Conditional Uses Sub district of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, there shall be no further commercial zoning for properties abutting Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. No new commercial uses shall be permitted on properties abutting streets accessing Golden Gate Parkway within the above- defined segment. This policy shall not apply to that existing portion of the Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Sub district, which is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The concept of building a RaceTrac on the southeast corner of Golden Gate Pkwy and Santa Barbara Blvd is poorly thought out and a major safety hazard. Adding a turning lane to the front of 5720 and 5724 Golden Gate Pkwy’s front easement will get someone killed. An entry to a RaceTrac right past the entrance to my driveway along with a west bound turning lane so close to the intersection of Golden Gate Pkwy and Santa Barbara Blvd will be a compete nightmare for anyone traveling east or west- bound on Golden Gate Parkway in this area. There will surely be a sign on I-75 before the Golden Gate exit that advertises the new RaceTrac just 0.2 miles from the exit which will lead to even more traffic trying to get off on Golden Gate Pkwy. Not to mention, the constant noise pollution from a RaceTrac: cars, trucks, maintenance vehicles, semi-trucks, garbage disposal, engines running, speakers, fluorescent lights, car wash vacuums and high speed blowers all within 25’ of my property and 24 hours a day. By allowing the construction of a RaceTrac, fast food restaurant and a car wash adjacent to my property will kill the value of it, and my neighbor’s to the west. You’re also going to kill an innocent person driving, walking, or riding a bike, trying to cross traffic or trying to turn into RaceTrac and the traffic jam you just created. 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 514 Attachment: Attachment B-1- Letter of Objection (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) Approval of this project will result in another situation similar to Pine Ridge Road exit 107 or Collier Blvd 951 exit 101. The difference is that the Pine Ridge Road and Collier Blvd. gasoline stations, fast food restaurants, and car washes are zoned commercially, and there are not any resi dential properties adjacent to those interchanges. Golden Gate Pkwy is all residential, excluding churches, David C Lawrence, Bingo halls, fitness centers. Outside of the Golden Gate City it is already in place. We already have 2 other car washes, gasoline convenience stores, fast food, restaurants, and beverage stores within a mile of this intersection this will take away from their operations. You have approved a sport facility off of Collier Blvd., I am sure there will sign directing traffic down Pine Ri dge Road Exit 107, Golden Gate Pkwy Exit 105, and Collier Blvd. exit 101. Before too long Golden Gate Parkway will look similar to Daniels Parkway in Fort Myers when the Red Sox have a spring training game; total gridlock. On top of the traffic fiasco, the selling, consumption of beer, wine, and cigarettes right next to a school with no boundaries, fencing, or walls separating the RaceTrac from the school is shameful. We the people elected you the commissioners to protect us from big corporations like this. The Golden Gate Area Master Plan is supposed to protect us from this happening! I am kindly requesting the Board of County Commissioners to take a step back and evaluate the negative ramifications of approving this RaceTrac project. Please consider how it will affect the Golden Gate area community, safety, and livelihoods of everyone involved. Thank you for your time, Tom Salzmann 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 515 Attachment: Attachment B-1- Letter of Objection (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com 3001 SB CPUD (PL20200000386) Application and Supporting Documents April 15, 2021 CCPC Hearing 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 516 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. Ph. 239-947-1144 Fax. 239-947-0375 3800 Via Del Rey EB 0005151 LB 0005151 LC 26000266 Bonita Springs, FL 34134 www.gradyminor.com April 28, 2020 Ms. Nancy Gundlach, AICP Collier County Growth Management Division/ Planning and Regulation Land Development Services Department Comprehensive Planning Section 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 RE: Collier County Application for Public Hearing, 3001 SB CPUD Rezone – PL20200000386, Submittal 1 Dear Ms. Gundlach: A Collier County application for Public Hearing for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) rezone for properties located at the southwest quadrant of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard is being filed electronically for review. This application proposes to rezone a 6.4 +/- acre parcel to allow up to 21,500 square feet of gross leasable area for general commercial. A companion small-scale amendment (PL20200000385) has been filed and is under review. Documents filed with submittal 1 include the following: 1. Cover Letter 2. Application for a Public Hearing for PUD Rezone 3. Evaluation Criteria 4. Utility Dedication Statement 5. Pre-application meeting notes 6. Affidavit of Authorization 7. Property Ownership Disclosure Form 8. Covenant of Unified Control 9. Addressing Checklist 10. Warranty Deed(s) 11. Boundary Survey 12. Aerial Location Map 13. Environmental Data Requirements 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 517 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) Ms. Nancy Gundlach, AICP RE: Collier County Application for Public Hearing, 3001 SB CPUD Rezone – PL20200000386, Submittal 1 April 28, 2020 Page 2 of 2 14. Traffic Impact Study 15. PUD Exhibits A-F 16. Deviation Justifications Please feel free to contact Rich Yovanovich at 435-3535 or me should you have any questions. Sincerely, D. Wayne Arnold, AICP c: Racetrac Petroleum, Inc. Richard D. Yovanovich GradyMinor File (RTSBGG-20 PUDZ Cover Ltr DRAFT.docx) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 518 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 February 1, 2019 Page 1 of 11 Application for a Public Hearing for PUD Rezone, Amendment to PUD or PUD to PUD Rezone PETITION NO PROJECT NAME DATE PROCESSED PUD Rezone (PUDZ): LDC subsection 10.02.13 A.-F., Ch. 3 G. 1 of the Administrative Code Amendment to PUD (PUDA): LDC subsection 10.02.13 E. and Ch. 3 G. 2 of the Administrative Code PUD to PUD Rezone (PUDR): LDC subsection 10.02.13 A.-F. APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION Name of Property Owner(s): _________________________________________________________ Name of Applicant if different than owner: _____________________________________________ Address: _________________________City: _______________ State: _________ ZIP: ___________ Telephone: _______________________ Cell: ______________________ Fax: __________________ E-Mail Address: ____________________________________________________________________ Name of Agent: ____________________________________________________________________ Firm: _____________________________________________________________________________ Address: ____________________________City: _______________ State: _______ ZIP: __________ Telephone: ____________________ Cell: ____________________ Fax: _______________________ E-Mail Address: ____________________________________________________________________ Be aware that Collier County has lobbyist regulations. Guide yourself accordingly and ensure that you are in compliance with these regulations. To be completed by staff Goodwill Industries of SW FL, Inc. RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc. 200 Galleria Parkway, Suite 900 Atlanta GA 30339 678-552-5390 thardy@racetrac.com D. Wayne Arnold, AICP and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. and Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs FL 34134 239-947-1144 and 239-435-3535 warnold@gradyminor.com and ryovanovich@cyklaw.com 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 519 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 February 1, 2019 Page 2 of 11 REZONE REQUEST This application is requesting a rezone from: _________________________ Zoning district(s) to the ________________________________ zoning district(s). Present Use of the Property: _________________________________________________________ Proposed Use (or range of uses) of the property: _________________________________________ Original PUD Name: ________________________________________________________________ Ordinance No.: ____________________________________________________________________ PROPERTY INFORMATION On a separate sheet attached to the application, provide a detailed legal description of the property covered by the application: 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: ________________ E, Estates Commercial Planned Unit Development Church Commercial land uses Not applicable Not applicable 29 49 26 N.A. N.A. Golden Gate Estates, Unit No. 30 See Boundary Survey included with submittal 1 758 38170040001 717 +/- 370 +/- 278,766+/- 6.4+/- 3001 Santa Barbara Boulevard Southwest quadrant of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Blvd. 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 520 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 February 1, 2019 Page 3 of 11 ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE Zoning Land Use N S E W If the owner of the subject property owns contiguous property please provide a detailed legal description of the entire contiguous property on a separate sheet attached to the application. Section/Township/Range: / / Lot: Block: Subdivision: ___________________________________________________ Plat Book: Page #: Property I.D. Number: ____________________________________ Metes & Bounds Description: _________________________________________________________ ASSOCIATIONS Required: List all registered Home Owner Association(s) that could be affected by this petition. Provide additional sheets if necessary. Information can be found on the Board of County Commissioner’s website at http://www.colliergov.net/Index.aspx?page=774. Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______ Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______ Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______ Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______ Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______ Golden Gate Pkwy and Colonades at Santa Barbara CPUD (Corridor Management Overlay)Right-of-way and undeveloped Estates Charter School Santa Barbara Blvd., Parkway Center CPUD and RMF-12 (GGPPOCO)Right-of-way, residential and undeveloped Estates Residential N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.N.A. N.A. N.A.N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 521 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 February 1, 2019 Page 4 of 11 EVALUATION CRITERIA Pursuant to LDC subsections 10.02.13 B, 10.02.08 F and Chapter 3 G. of the Administrative Code, staff’s analysis and recommendation to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission’s recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners shall be based upon consideration of the applicable criteria. On a separate sheet attached to the application, provide a narrative statement describing the rezone request with specific reference to the criteria below. Include any backup materials and documentation in support of the request. a. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. b. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the county attorney. c. Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan. (This is to include identifying what Sub-district, policy or other provision allows the requested uses/density, and fully explaining/addressing all criteria or conditions of that Sub-district, policy or other provision.) d. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. e. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. f. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. g. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. h. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications of justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. Deed Restrictions: The County is legally precluded from enforcing deed restrictions; however, many communities have adopted such restrictions. You may wish to contact the civic or property owners association in the area for which this use is being requested in order to ascertain whether or not the request is affected by existing deed restrictions. 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 522 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 February 1, 2019 Page 5 of 11 Previous land use petitions on the subject property: To your knowledge, has a public hearing been held on this property within the last year? If so, what was the nature of that hearing? __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ Official Interpretations or Zoning Verifications: To your knowledge, has there been an official interpretation or zoning verification rendered on this property within the last year? Yes No if so please provide copies. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS This land use petition requires a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM), pursuant to Chapter 3 E. of the Administrative Code and LDC section 10.03.06. Following the NIM, the applicant will submit a written summary and any commitments that have been made at the meeting. Refer to Chapter 8 B. of the Administrative Code for the NIM procedural requirements. Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code requires that the applicant must remove their public hearing advertising sign(s) after final action is taken by the Board of County Commissioners. Based on the Board's final action on this item, please remove all public hearing advertising sign(s) immediately. RECORDING OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS Within 30 days of adoption of the Ordinance, the owner or developer (specify name) at their expense shall record in the Public Records of Collier County a Memorandum of Understanding of Developer Commitments or Notice of Developer Commitments that contains the legal description of the property that is the subject of the land use petition and contains each and every commitment of the owner or developer specified in the Ordinance. The Memorandum or Notice shall be in form acceptable to the County and shall comply with the recording requirements of Chapter 695, FS. A recorded copy of the Memorandum or Notice shall be provided to the Collier County Planned Unit Development Monitoring staff within 15 days of recording of said Memorandum or Notice. LDC subsection 10.02.08 D This application will be considered “open” when the determination of “sufficiency” has been made and the application is assigned a petition processing number. The application will be considered “closed” when the petitioner withdraws the application through written notice or ceases to supply necessary information to continue processing or otherwise actively pursue the rezoning, amendment or change, for a period of 6 months. An application deemed “closed” will not receive further processing and an application “closed” through inactivity shall be deemed withdrawn. An application deemed “closed” may be re-opened by submission of a new application, repayment of all application fees and the grant of a determination of “sufficiency”. Further review of the request will be subject to the then current code. No 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 523 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 February 1, 2019 Page 6 of 11 STATEMENT OF UTILITY PROVISIONS FOR PUD REZONE REQUEST APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION Name of Applicant(s): _______________________________________________________________ Address: _________________________________ City: ___________ State: ________ ZIP: _______ Telephone: ____________________ Cell: _____________________ Fax: ______________________ E-Mail Address: ____________________________________________________________________ Address of Subject Property (If available): ______________________________________________ City: _________________ State: ________ ZIP: _________ PROPERTY INFORMATION Section/Township/Range: / / Lot: Block: Subdivision: ___________________________________________________ Metes & Bounds Description: _________________________________________________________ Plat Book: Page #: Property I.D. Number: ____________________________________ TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL TO BE PROVIDED Check applicable system: a. County Utility System b. City Utility System c. Franchised Utility System Provide Name: __________________________ d. Package Treatment Plant (GPD Capacity): _________________________ e. Septic System TYPE OF WATER SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED Check applicable system: a. County Utility System b. City Utility System c. Franchised Utility System Provide Name: __________________________ d. Private System (Well) Total Population to be Served: ________________________________________________________ Peak and Average Daily Demands: A. Water-Peak: _________ Average Daily: __________ B. Sewer-Peak: _________ Average Daily: __________ If proposing to be connected to Collier County Regional Water System, please provide the date service is expected to be required: ____________________________________________________ Racetrac Petroleum, Inc. 200 Galleria Parkway, Suite 900 Atlanta GA 30339 678-552-5390 thardy@racetrac.com 3001 Santa Barbara Blvd 29 46 26 N.A. N.A.Golden Gate Estates, Unit 30 See Boundary Survey 758 38170040001 X X See attached Flow Estimates 2022 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 524 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 February 1, 2019 Page 7 of 11 Narrative statement: Provide a brief and concise narrative statement and schematic drawing of sewage treatment process to be used as well as a specific statement regarding the method of affluent and sludge disposal. If percolation ponds are to be used, then percolation data and soil involved shall be provided from tests prepared and certified by a professional engineer. __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ Collier County Utility Dedication Statement: If the project is located within the service boundaries of Collier County’s utility service system, a notarized statement shall be provided agreeing to dedicate the water distribution and sewage collection facilities within the project area to the Collier County Utilities. This shall occur upon completion of the construction of these facilities in accordance with all applicable County ordinances in effect at that time. This statement shall also include an agreement that the applicable system development charges and connection fees will be paid to the County Utilities Division prior to the issuance of building permits by the County. If applicable, the statement shall contain an agreement to dedicate the appropriate utility easements for serving the water and sewer systems. __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ Statement of Availability Capacity from other Providers: Unless waived or otherwise provided for at the pre-application meeting, if the project is to receive sewer or potable water services from any provider other than the County, a statement from that provider indicating adequate capacity to serve the project shall be provided. N.A. See "Collier County Utility Dedication Statement" document 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 525 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 February 1, 2019 Page 8 of 11 COVENANT OF UNIFIED CONTROL The undersigned do hereby swear or affirm that we are the fee simple titleholders and owners of record of property commonly known as ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ (Street address and City, State and Zip Code) and legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto. The property described herein is the subject of an application for ______________ planned unit development (______________PUD) zoning. We hereby designate___________________, legal representative thereof, as the legal representatives of the property and as such, these individuals are authorized to legally bind all owners of the property in the course of seeking the necessary approvals to develop. This authority includes, but is not limited to, the hiring and authorization of agents to assist in the preparation of applications, plans, surveys, and studies necessary to obtain zoning approval on the site. These representatives will remain the only entity to authorize development activity on the property until such time as a new or amended covenant of unified control is delivered to Collier County. The undersigned recognize the following and will be guided accordingly in the pursuit of development of the project: 1. The property will be developed and used in conformity with the approved master plan including all conditions placed on the development and all commitments agreed to by the applicant in connection with the planned unit development rezoning. 2. The legal representative identified herein is responsible for compliance with all terms, conditions, safeguards, and stipulations made at the time of approval of the master plan, even if the property is subsequently sold in whole or in part, unless and until a new or amended covenant of unified control is delivered to and recorded by Collier County. 3. A departure from the provisions of the approved plans or a failure to comply with any requirements, conditions, or safeguards provided for in the planned unit development process will constitute a violation of the Land Development Code. 4. All terms and conditions of the planned unit development approval will be incorporated into covenants and restrictions which run with the land so as to provide notice to subsequent owners that all development activity within the planned unit development must be consistent with those terms and conditions. 5. So long as this covenant is in force, Collier County can, upon the discovery of noncompliance with the terms, safeguards, and conditions of the planned unit development, seek equitable relief as necessary to compel compliance. The County will not issue permits, certificates, or licenses to occupy or use any part of the planned unit development and the County may stop ongoing construction activity until the project is brought into compliance with all terms, conditions and safeguards of the planned unit development. ___________________________________ ___________________________________ Owner Owner ____________________________________ ___________________________________ Printed Name Printed Name STATE OF FLORIDA) COUNTY OF COLLIER) Sworn to (or affirmed) and subscribed before me this day of , 201__ by ____________________ who is personally known to me or has produced _____________________________ as identification. ____________________________________ Notary Public (Name typed, printed or stamped) Property I.D. #38170040001 3001 Santa Barbara Boulevard, Naples FL 34116 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 526 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 February 1, 2019 Page 9 of 11 Final Submittal Requirement Checklist for: PUD Rezone- Ch. 3 G. 1 of the Administrative Code Amendment to PUD- Ch. 3 G. 2 of the Administrative Code PUD to PUD Rezone- Ch. 3 G. 1 of the Administrative Code The following Submittal Requirement checklist is to be utilized during the Pre-Application Meeting and at time of application submittal. At final submittal, the checklist is to be completed and submitted with an up-to-date application. Please provide the submittal items in the exact order listed below, with cover sheets attached to each section. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. A Model PUD Document is available online at http://www.colliercountyfl.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=76983. REQUIREMENTS # OF COPIES REQUIRED NOT REQUIRED Cover Letter with Narrative Statement including a detailed description of why amendment is necessary 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 X X X X X X X 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 527 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 February 1, 2019 Page 10 of 11 Revised Conceptual Master Site Plan 24” x 36”and One 8 ½” x 11” copy Original PUD document/ordinance, and Master Plan 24” x 36” – Only if Amending the PUD Revised PUD document with changes crossed thru & underlined 1 Copy of Official Interpretation and/or Zoning Verification 1 *If located in Immokalee or seeking affordable housing, include an additional set of each submittal requirement +The following exhibits are to be completed on a separate document and attached to the application packet: Exhibit A: List of Permitted Uses Exhibit B: Development Standards Exhibit C: Master Plan- See Chapter 3 E. 1. of the Administrative Code Exhibit D: Legal Description Exhibit E: List of Requested LDC Deviations and justification for each Exhibit F: List of Development Commitments If located in RFMU (Rural Fringe Mixed Use) Receiving Land Areas Pursuant to LDC subsection 2.03.08.A.2.a.2.(b.)i.c., the applicant must contact the Florida Forest Service at 239- 690-3500 for information regarding “Wildfire Mitigation & Prevention Plan.” PLANNERS – INDICATE IF THE PETITION NEEDS TO BE ROUTED TO THE FOLLOWING REVIEWERS: School District (Residential Components): Amy Lockheart Conservancy of SWFL: Nichole Johnson Utilities Engineering: Eric Fey Parks and Recreation: Barry Williams (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 X X X X X X 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 528 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 February 1, 2019 Page 11 of 11 Legal Advertising Fees: o CCPC: $1,125.00 o BCC: $500.00 School Concurrency Fee, if applicable: o Mitigation Fees, if application, to be determined by the School District in coordination with the County Fire Code Plans Review Fees are 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 tional fee for the 5th and subsequent re-submittal w ____________________________________________________________________________________________ X D. Wayne Arnold, AICP July 22, 2020 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 529 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 3001 SB CPUD (PL20200000386) Statement of Utility Provisions Flow Estimates July 17, 2020 Page 1 of 2 RTSBGG-20 Flow Estimates.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com Shopping center (retail): 21,500 sf Wastewater ADF = 21500 sf x 0.1 gpd/sf = 2,150 gpd Peak = 1.35 x ADF = 2903 gpd Water: ADF = 1.4 x WW flow = 3,010 gpd Peak =1.35 x ADF = 4064 gpd OR 9,250 sf retail Wastewater ADF = 9250 sf x 0.1 gpd/sf = 925 gpd Peak = 1.35 x ADF = 1249 gpd Water: ADF = 1.4 x WW flow = 1295 gpd Peak =1813 gpd And 5,500 sf gas station (assume open more than 16 hr/day and 10 water closets) Wastewater ADF = 10 WCs x 325gpd/WC = 3250 gpd Peak = 1.35 x ADF = 4388 gpd Water: ADF = 1.4 x WW flow = 4550 gpd Peak =6143 gpd And 6,750 sf fast food (assume 100 seats, single service articles and operating >16hrs/day) Wastewater ADF = 100 seats x 35gpd/seat = 3500 gpd Peak = 1.35 x ADF = 4725 gpd Water: 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 530 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) Page 2 of 2 ADF = 1.4 x WW flow = 4900 gpd Peak =6379 gpd Totals: WW: ADF: 925 + 3250 + 3500 = 7675 gpd Peak: 10361 gpd Water: ADF: 1295 + 4550 + 4900 = 10745 gpd Peak: 14506 gpd 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 531 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) February 22, 2019 VIA: E-MAIL Kelly Pearce <kpearce@cphcorp.com> Project Coordinator CPH Corp. 2216 Altamont Ave Fort Myers, FL 33901 Subject: Water and Wastewater Service Availability Project: 3001 Santa Barbara Blvd Parcel #: 38170040001 Dear Kelly: The subject project is within the Collier County Water-Sewer District’s (CCWSD) water and wastewater service areas. This property already receives water service from the CCWSD via connection to the existing 8” water main across Santa Barbara Blvd. An existing 8” water main near the southeast property corner, which provides fire protection service to the adjacent school, and a 12” water main across Golden Gate Parkway are available for additional connections, as needed. Potable water is available for domestic use, fire protection, and irrigation, subject to the provisions of LDC 4.03.08 C, the Collier County Irrigation Ordinance (2015-27), and other applicable rules and regulations. Wastewater service is readily available to the project via an existing 4” force main across Golden Gate Parkway. The 20” force main on the east side of Santa Barbara Blvd connects the south and north service areas and is not in continuous operation. Therefore, it is not available for wastewater service to the project. Connections to the CCWSD’s water distribution and wastewater collection/transmission systems will be permitted only in the locations referenced herein, or in a superseding utility service availability letter, and only after the GMD Development Review Division’s approval of hydraulic calculations prepared by the Developer’s Engineer of Record in accordance with the Design Criteria found in Section 1 of the Collier County Water-Sewer District Utilities Standards Manual. Potable water source pressure shall be verified by the results of a fire flow test not older than six months, in accordance with subsection 2.2.1, paragraph A. Please contact Corinne Trtan (Corinne.Trtan@colliercountyfl.gov) to confirm force main connection pressure. Adequate capacity for this project is not guaranteed until the project receives a commitment for service. 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 532 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) A preliminary utility plan must be reviewed and discussed at a pre-submittal conference with representatives of the Public Utilities Department and the Growth Management Department, as required by Sec. 134-58, paragraph (b)(2) of the Code of Ordinances. This conference may be conducted by email at the discretion of the Public Utilities Department. Please contact Dan Roman (Daniel.Roman@colliercountyfl.gov) for assistance with this requirement. See the below GIS screen shot and the attached record drawings for approximate utility locations. If you have any questions, you may contact me at (239) 252-1037 or Eric.Fey@colliercountyfl.gov. Respectfully, Eric Fey, P.E., Senior Project Manager CC: Steve Messner, Division Director – Water, PUD/WD; Beth Johnssen, Division Director – Wastewater, PUD/WWD; Ben Bullert, Interim Principal Project Manager – Water, PUD/EPMD; Michael Stevens, Principal Project Manager – Wastewater, PUD/EPMD; Craig Pajer, Principal Project Manager – Utility Expansion, PUD/EPMD; Corinne Trtan, Project Manager – Utility Expansion, PUD/EPMD; Brett Rosenblum, Principal Project Manager, GMD/DRD; Dan Roman, Senior Site Plans Reviewer, GMD/DRD; Utility Planning Section <UtilityPlanning@colliercountyfl.gov> 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 533 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) GIS Screen Shot 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 534Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 3001 SB CPUD (PL20200000386) Evaluation Criteria July 23, 2020 Page 1 of 8 RTSBGG-20 Evaluation Criteria-r1.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com Pursuant to LDC subsections 10.02.13 B, 10.02.08 F and Chapter 3 G. of the Administrative Code, staff’s analysis and recommendation to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission’s recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners shall be based upon consideration of the applicable criteria. Provide a narrative statement describing the rezone request with specific reference to the criteria below. Include any backup materials and documentation in support of the request. The 3001 SB Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) is a 6.4± acre property located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The property is designated Estates, Mixed Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict on the Golden Gate Master Plan Future Land Use Map. A companion small-scale plan amendment has been submitted which proposes to re-designate this property as the Santa Barbara Boulevard/Golden Gate Parkway Commercial Subdistrict. This subdistrict authorizes 21,500 square feet of commercial uses consistent with those uses permitted in the C-3, Intermediate Commercial Zoning District and limited C-4, General Commercial Zoning District uses. The property is currently zoned Estates. The applicant proposes to rezone the property to allow up to 21,500 square feet of gross leasable area for general commercial land uses. a. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. The three other quadrants at this intersection are zoned for commercial land uses. The large intersection of two primary 6-lane arterial roads is unsuitable and incompatible for low density residential development currently permitted under the existing Golden Gate Master Plan and underlying Estates Zoning District. Although a church has been developed on the property, the expert real estate and market analysis demonstrates that commercial development is the highest and best use for the site. The site has access to central water and sewer, and the proposed access points have been coordinated with Collier County Transportation staff. b. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the county attorney. The subject CPUD has one property owner. The applicant is the contract purchaser of the proposed 3001 SB CPUD. 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 535 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) Page 2 of 8 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.) Future Land Use Element: The 6.4± project is designated Urban Estates, Mixed Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict on the Future Land Use Map. A small-scale amendment application has been filed for the property. The proposed Santa Barbara Boulevard/Golden Gate Parkway Commercial Subdistrict will permit a variety of office and retail uses consistent with those permitted in the C-1 through C-3 Zoning Districts and limited C-4 Zoning District uses. The proposed uses are consistent with the proposed text for the Santa Barbara Boulevard/Golden Gate Parkway Commercial Subdistrict. The property has access to potable water and sanitary sewer services, which is provided by Collier County Utilities. No capacity issues have been identified or are anticipated in the future. The project has filed a small-scale growth management plan amendment which provides for commercial land uses ranging from C-1 to C-3 intensity of uses. The proposed CPUD is consistent with the newly proposed sub-district. The applicant has prepared a professional market analysis in support of the small-scale amendment, which concludes there is demand in this area for the 21,500 square feet of commercial uses proposed for the site. The Future Land Use Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan addresses in Objective 7 and implementing Policies 7.1 7.7 smart growth. The proposed project is providing direct vehicular connections to the fronting arterial roadways – Santa Barbara Boulevard and Golden Gate Parkway. Policy 7.2 encourages internal accesses and loop roads. The proposed project will likely be developed as 3 or 4 independent commercial uses and all parcels within the planned development will be internally accessible without a requirement to utilize the external streets. With regard to Policy 7.3, it is not feasible to provide an interconnection to the west, which is developed with a single-family residence. A connection to the south is not feasible. The site is developed with the Bridge Prep Academy Charter School. The applicant discussed the potential interconnection with the school owners and the school did not support vehicular interconnection of the site due to potential conflicts during student pick-up and drop- off. A sidewalk does exist within the Santa Barbara Boulevard ROW which will provide pedestrian access between the school and proposed commercial uses. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) Policy 6.1.1 of the CCME requires that sites containing native vegetation to preserve a portion of the native vegetation or satisfy the requirement through off-site mitigation. The LDC contains standards for providing off-site native vegetation preservation to satisfy Policy 6.1.1. 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 536 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) Page 3 of 8 LDC Section 3.05.07.H.1.F. provides that where the on-site preserve requirement is less than 0.5 acres, the preservation may be satisfied by providing for off-site preservation, or payment to Conservation Collier. The applicant’s biologist has determined that the site contains approximately 1.42 acres of native vegetation requiring preservation of 0.21 acres, which is within the permissible threshold for off-site preservation consistent with Policy 6.1.1. and LDC Section 3.05.07.H.1.F. The environmental assessment includes an analysis of listed species as required in Objective 7.1 and implementing policies of the CCME. No listed species were observed on the site. The proposed PUD rezone is consistent with Objective 7.1. Transportation Element A traffic analysis has been completed for the project consistent with the requirements of the County’s Administrative Code. The TIS concludes that the project will not result in any LOS deficiencies consistent with Objective 1 of the Transportation Element. 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. The proposed CPUD will provide a 25’ – 30’ wide Type B landscape buffer along the property’s western boundary. This buffer type is consistent with that required when a non-residential use abuts a residential use. Buildings have been limited to 1-story in height with a zoned building height of 30 feet, which is consistent with the permissible building height for the adjacent Estates zoned property e. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The project will provide a minimum of 30% open space consistent with the requirements of the LDC, which will include native vegetation preserve areas, lakes, buffers and recreational areas. f. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. The proposed development of commercial uses will not require phasing due to infrastructure availability. Adequate infrastructure is in place at the project site to service the proposed commercial uses. g. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 537 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) Page 4 of 8 The CPUD boundary is not proposed to be expanded due to existing development to the west and south and existing public roadways to the north and east. h. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications of justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. The CPUD includes development standards and conditions, which will assure compatible and complementary development. 10.02.08 - Requirements for Amendments to the Official Zoning Atlas F. Nature of requirements of Planning Commission report. When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners required in LDC section 10.02.08 E shall show that the Planning Commission has studied and considered the proposed change in relation to the following findings, when applicable: 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future land use map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. The CPUD, as proposed, is consistent with the companion small-scale plan amendment, which permits C-1 through C-3 commercial uses. The project has filed a small-scale growth management plan amendment which provides for commercial land uses ranging from C-1 to C-3 intensity of uses. The proposed CPUD is consistent with the newly proposed sub-district. The Future Land Use Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan addresses in Objective 7 and implementing Policies 7.1 7.7 smart growth. The proposed project is providing direct vehicular connections to the fronting arterial roadways – Santa Barbara Boulevard and Golden Gate Parkway. Policy 7.2 encourages internal accesses and loop roads. The proposed project will likely be developed as 3 or 4 independent commercial uses and all parcels within the planned development will be internally accessible without a requirement to utilize the external streets. With regard to Policy 7.3, it is not feasible to provide an interconnection to the west, which is developed with a single-family residence. A connection to the south is not feasible. The site is developed wit the Bridge Prep Academy Charter School. The applicant discussed the potential interconnection with the school owners and the school did not support vehicular interconnection of the site due to potential conflicts during student pick-up and drop- off. A sidewalk does exist within the Santa Barbara Boulevard ROW which will provide pedestrian access between the school and proposed commercial uses. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 538 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) Page 5 of 8 Policy 6.1.1 of the CCME requires that sites containing native vegetation to preserve a portion of the native vegetation or satisfy the requirement through off-site mitigation. The LDC contains standards for providing off-site native vegetation preservation to satisfy Policy 6.1.1. LDC Section 3.05.07.H.1.F. provides that where the on-site preserve requirement is less than 0.5 acres, the preservation may be satisfied by providing for off-site preservation, or payment to Conservation Collier. The applicant’s biologist has determined that the site contains approximately 1.42 acres of native vegetation requiring preservation of 0.21 acres, which is within the permissible threshold for off-site preservation consistent with Policy 6.1.1. and LDC Section 3.05.07.H.1.F. The environmental assessment includes an analysis of listed species as required in Objective 7.1 and implementing policies of the CCME. No listed species were observed on the site. The proposed PUD rezone is consistent with Objective 7.1. Transportation Element A traffic analysis has been completed for the project consistent with the requirements of the County’s Administrative Code. The TIS concludes that the project will not result in any LOS deficiencies consistent with Objective 1 of the Transportation Element. 2. The existing land use pattern. The subject property is located at the intersection of two arterial roadways. The properties located to the east and north are zoned for commercial development. Properties to the west are zoned Estates and are developed with single-family homes. Buffers are proposed consistent with the LDC to ensure compatibility of uses. The LDC contains buffering standards in Section 4.06 which have been determined to provide for a compatible relationship between land uses. The maximum intensity of uses proposed are C-1 through C-3 land uses, which are the same intensity permitted within Neighborhood Centers in the Rural Golden Gate Estates Area. This site is further distinguished from other sites in that it is located at the intersection of two 6-lane arterial roadways and is adjacent to Golden Gate City. The site has also been utilized for non-residential use for 30± years and given the market analysis and transportation system modifications, warrants the re-development of the site for the limited commercial land uses. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The CPUD is for property under the ownership of the applicant and therefore no isolated district is being created. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 539 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) Page 6 of 8 The boundaries are not illogically drawn and comprise all of the property under the unified control of the applicant. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. The property is currently zoned Estates, which does not permit the proposed commercial uses. The area in the vicinity of the project site have changed dramatically over the past two decades. The County has expanded both Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard to be 6- lane facilities, which acknowledges the changing densities and land use patterns in the Urban Golden Gate Estates and Golden Gate City. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The CPUD document includes development standards to ensure that it is compatible with the immediately surrounding properties. The CPUD master plan identifies appropriate buffers and open spaces, which will further ensure that the development of the commercial land uses will have no adverse impacts to the neighborhood. Access to the project will be from Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. A traffic impact analysis has been submitted in support of the proposed rezone. No level of service issues have been identified and the site will have access to a signalized intersection at Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The character of traffic will not be discernably different than that historically permitted for the subject property, or the type of traffic currently utilizing Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard. Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard Avenue serves existing commercial, community facility and residential uses. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The project will be required to obtain an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) through the South Florida Water Management District. The ERP review evaluates historic surface water flows and controls the off-site discharge of stormwater from the site. The project will have internal water management facilities including detention areas to control the drainage for the project. No drainage issues will result from this project. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 540 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) Page 7 of 8 Given the limitation on building heights, setbacks, and buffering, there will be no reduction in light or air for adjacent properties. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. The CPUD rezone proposes to establish commercial land uses. The uses are controlled by development standards in the CPUD document which provide setbacks from adjacent properties. Development subject to the CPUD standards will not adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. All immediately adjacent properties to the south and east are developed, and the addition of commercial land uses should not be a deterrent to improvement or redevelopment of adjacent properties. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. The CPUD rezone is a companion to a small-scale growth management plan amendment. This process does not grant a special privilege to a property owner and the process is consistent with the process outlined in Chapter 163, F.S. for amendments to growth management plan. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The existing zoning is Estates which does not permit commercial land uses. The amendment is necessary to establish commercial land use within the CPUD. The market analysis included with the companion small-scale amendment identifies the proposed commercial uses as the highest and best use for the property. While a church is an allowable use in the C-1 through C- 3 use, the existing site does not qualify under the criteria for Transitional Conditional Uses in that the parcel is adjacent to a school. This parcel has commercial uses permitted to the north and east, and the proposed commercial land uses are appropriate for the site. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county. The proposed rezone is in scale with the needs of the neighborhood and Collier County. The square footage of commercial uses, as well as the type of uses has been established in the CPUD. The market analysis demonstrates that the proposed 21,500 square feet is in-scale with the needs of the neighborhood and Collier County. The proposed represents 3,359 square 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 541 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) Page 8 of 8 feet per acre. This intensity is far less than many existing and proposed commercial PUDs in Collier County. This limited level of commercial intensity is consistent with neighborhood scale commercial. The CPUD is not out of scale for the neighborhood or Collier County. 15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. It is not impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for commercial uses; however, this site has existing infrastructure including roads and access to water, and sewer available to serve the project. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. The subject property is partially developed with a church and internal infrastructure. The area proposed for commercial uses has been cleared and filled and there are no obstacles to construct the proposed uses. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance [Code ch. 106, art. II], as amended. There are adequate roadways and utilities available at the site. There are no public facilities deficiencies at the present time, and none will occur as a result of this project. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. The project is consistent with the proposed Santa Barbara Boulevard/Golden Gate Parkway Commercial Subdistrict of the Growth Management Plan and it is compatible with surrounding development. 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 542 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 543 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 544 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 545 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 546 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 547 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 548 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 549 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 550 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 551 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 552 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 553 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 554 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 555 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 556 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 557 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 558 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 559 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 560 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 561 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 562 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 563Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 564 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 565 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 566 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 567 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 568 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 569 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 570 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 571 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Created 9/28/2017 Page 1 of 3 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 Not Applicable b. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each: Name and Address % of Ownership Goodwill Industries of SW FL, Inc 100 A Florida Not for Profit Corporation 5100 Tice St., Fort Myers, FL 33905 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 Not Applicable PROPERTY OWNERSHIP DISCLOSURE FORM 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 572 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (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 Not Applicable 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: f. Name and Address % of Ownership Racetrac Petroleum, Inc., 200 Galleria Parkway, Suite 900, Atlanta GA 30339 100 Shareholders % of Shares Carl Bolch, Sr. Trust, dated 9/21/73 50.45% Carl E. Bolch, Jr. Grantor Retained Annuity Trust, dated 12/23/10 18.10% Susan Bass Bolch, Grantor Retained Annuity Trust, dated 12/23/10 18.10% Allison Bolch Moran 2.92% Natalie Bolch Morhous 2.92% Melanie Bolch Isbill 2.92% Jordan Bass Bolch 2.92% Max Lenker 0.57% Robert J. Dumbacher 0.61% Max E. McBrayer, Jr. 0.02% Shirley B. Eggers 0.13% Robby Posener 0.11% 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 573 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Created 9/28/2017 Page 3 of 3 Mark A. Reese 0.05% Karla Ahlert 0.06% J. Gilmore 0.02% Kelly Walker Benton 0.03% Whitney Woodward 0.04% Joseph H. Akers 0.03% Brian Thornton 0.08% Arthur J. Siccardi, Jr. 0.05% Bart Stransky 0.02% TOTAL: 100.00% Date of Contract: December 16, 2019 g. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust: Name and Address % of Ownership Not Applicable h. Date subject property acquired 07/2004 Leased: Term of lease years /months If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following: Date of option: Date option terminates: , or Anticipated closing date: 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 574 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Created 9/28/2017 Page 4 of 3 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 April 8, 2020 Agent/Owner Signature Date D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Agent/Owner Name (please print) AFFIRM PROPERTY OWNERSHIP INFORMATION 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 575 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 576 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 577 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-5724 ADDRESSING CHECKLIST Please complete the following and email to GMD_Addressing@colliergov.net or fax to the Operations Division at 239-252-5724 or submit in person to the Addressing Section at the above address. Form must be signed by Addressing personnel prior to pre-application meeting, please allow 3 days for processing. Not all items will apply to every project. Items in bold type are required. FOLIO NUMBERS MUST BE PROVIDED. Forms older than 6 months will require additional review and approval by the Addressing Section. PETITION TYPE (Indicate type below, complete a separate Addressing Checklist for each Petition type) BL (Blasting Permit) BD (Boat Dock Extension) Carnival/Circus Permit CU (Conditional Use) EXP (Excavation Permit) FP (Final Plat LLA (Lot Line Adjustment) PNC (Project Name Change) PPL (Plans & Plat Review) PSP (Preliminary Subdivision Plat) PUD Rezone RZ (Standard Rezone) SDP (Site Development Plan) SDPA (SDP Amendment) SDPI (Insubstantial Change to SDP) SIP (Site Im provement Plan) SIPI (Insubstantial Change to SIP) SNR (Street Name Change) SNC (Street Name Change – Unplatted) TDR (Transfer of Development Rights) VA (Variance) VRP (Vegetation Removal Permit) VRSFP (Vegetation Removal & Site Fill Permit) OTHER LEGAL DESCRIPT ION of subject property or properties (copy of lengthy description may be attached) FOLIO (Property ID) NUMBER(s) of above (attach to, or associate with, legal description if more than one) STREET ADDRESS or ADDRESSES (as applicable, if already assigned) PROPOSED STREET NAMES (if applicable) SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NUMBER (for existing projects/sites only) 1 LOCATION MAP must be attached showing exact location of project/site in relation to nearest public road right- of-way PROPOSED PROJECT NAME (if applicable) SDP - or AR or PL # SURVEY (copy - needed only for unplatted properties) CURRENT PROJECT NAME (if applicable) S29 T49 R26 PUDZ- PL20180003185 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 578 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-5724 Please Return Approved Checklist By: Email Personally picked up Applicant Name: Signature on Addressing Checklist does not constitute Project and/or Street Name approval and is subject to further review by the Operations Division. FOR STAFF USE ONLY Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Approved by: Date: Updated by: Date: IF OLDER THAN 6 MONTHS, FORM MUST BE UPDATED OR NEW FORM SUBMITTED 2 Fax Email/Fax:Phone: Project or development names proposed for, or already appearing in, condominium documents (if application; indicate whether proposed or existing) 38170040001 03/16/2020 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 579 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 580 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) / $ 0 $ 0 $ 3,350,000 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 21,800 $ 398,750 $ 619,486 $ 1,018,236 $ 1,018,236 $ 1,018,236 $ 1,018,236 Collier County Proper ty AppraiserProperty Summar y Parcel No 38170040001 SiteAddress*Disclaimer 3001SANTABARBARABLVD Site City NAPLES Site Zone*Note 34116 Name / Address GOODWILL INDUST OF SW FL INC ATTN: ACCOUNTING 5100 TICE ST City FORT MYERS State FL Zip 33905 Map No.Strap No.Section Township Range Acres *Estimated 4B29 335500 113 04B29 29 49 26 6.38 Legal GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 TR 113 AND THE N 150FT OF TR 114, LESS THATPORTION AS DESC IN OR 3476 PG 1315 AND LESS THAT PORTION AS DESC INOR 3571 PG 4169 Millage Area 10 Millage Rates *Calculations Sub./Condo 335500 - GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 School Other Total Use Code 71 - CHURCHES 5.083 6.3071 11.3901 Latest Sales Histor y (Not all Sales are listed due to Confidentiality) Date Book-Page Amount 09/17/18 5554-2760 07/23/04 3612-1287 06/28/04 3595-2641 08/02/83 1036-93 06/01/83 1026-1017 06/01/80 871-33 10/01/73 554-582 2019 Certified Tax Roll (Subject to Change) Land Value (+) Improved Value (=) Market Value (=) Assessed Value (=) School Taxable Value (=) Taxable Value If all Values shown above equal 0 this parcel was created after theFinal Tax Roll 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 581 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) / Collier County Proper ty AppraiserProperty Aerial Parcel No 38170040001 SiteAddress*Disclaimer 3001SANTABARBARABLVD Site City NAPLES Site Zone*Note 34116 Open GIS in a New Window with More Features. 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 582 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 583 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 584 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 585 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 586Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) Santa Barbara BLVDGolden Gate PKWY 29th PL SW 27th CT SW Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Santa Barbara Blvd / Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict (PL20200000385) Location Map / 240 0 240120 Feet SUBJECT PROPERTY 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 587 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 3001 SB CPUD LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA PREPARED BY: PENINSULA ENGINEERING 2600 GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY NAPLES, FL 34105 DECEMBER 2018 UPDATED APRIL 2020 UPDATED JUNE 2020 _ BRUCE LAYMAN, CE, PWS 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 588 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 3001 SB CPUD LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA UPDATE 2 P:\Active_Projects\P-RACE-003\001_SB3001 RaceTrac Co. RAI\Submittals\County TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 3 2. PROJECT METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................... 3 2.1. Listed Wildlife Survey .................................................................................................................... 3 2.2. Listed Plant Survey ........................................................................................................................ 4 2.3. Habitat Mapping ........................................................................................................................... 4 3. SURVEY RESULTS ................................................................................................................................... 5 3.1. Listed Wildlife Species Observed/Identified on Site ..................................................................... 5 3.2. Listed Wildlife Species Not Observed but With Potential to Occur on Site ................................ 5 3.3. Listed Plant Species Observed on Site ........................................................................................... 6 3.4. Habitat Mapping ........................................................................................................................... 6 4. SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................. 7 5. REFERENCES CITED ................................................................................................................................ 7 TABLES Table 1 - Non-Listed Wildlife Species Observed ........................................................................................... 9 Table 2 - Estimated Probability of Occurrence of Non-Observed Listed Faunal Species ............................ 9 APPENDICES Appendix A - Existing Vegetation Association & Land Use Descriptions FIGURES Figure 1 – FLUCCS, Listed Species, & Transect Exhibit Figure 2 - Nuisance Bear in Feed, Feeder, Garbage Location Map 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 589 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 3001 SB CPUD LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA UPDATE 3 P:\Active_Projects\P-RACE-003\001_SB3001 RaceTrac Co. RAI\Submittals\County 1. INTRODUCTION In order to support local and state environmental permitting, Peninsula Engineering (PE) initiated listed species assessment services associated with a 6.40-acre parcel known as 3001 Santa Barbara. The Project Site is located in Section 29; Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. Goodwill Industries of Southwest Florida, Inc. facilities are located on the parcel. The Project is bordered on the north by Golden Gate Parkway, on the east by Santa Barbara Boulevard, on the south by Naples Christian Academy, and on the west by residential development. Approximately 70% of the 6.40 acres exists as buildings/parking and mowed landscape. 2. PROJECT METHODOLOGY Bruce Layman, Ecologist with PE, conducted a listed species survey on the Project site on March 30, 2018, and again on April 1, 2020. His credentials to conduct the survey and generate the Environmental Data include receiving a B.S. in Zoology from Michigan State University and a M.S. in Marine Science from the Virginia Institute of Marine Science; followed by managing projects that involve listed species and jurisdictional wetlands, developing wetland and listed species mitigation plans, mapping and post- permitting monitoring of environmental resources, and supporting environmental permits for wetlands and listed wildlife for private and public clients in S.W. Florida since 1992. The following narrative describes the methodologies used in habitat mapping and conducting the listed species survey. 2.1. Listed Wildlife Survey Prior to conducting the listed species survey, color aerial imagery was reviewed to anticipate which habitats may be present. Based on the habitat types identified, a conceptual list of state and federal listed flora and fauna that could occur on the project site was generated. Various publications and databases were also reviewed to identify listed plant and wildlife species that are regionally present and that could occur in those habitat types. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s (FWC) Florida’s Endangered and Threatened Species (FWC, 2016) was used to determine the “listed” state and federal status designation of wildlife species. The FWC Wildlife Occurrence data base (WildObs) was queried to identify documented listed plant and wildlife occurrences within a 5-mile radius of the project site. The FWC data base, updated July 2017, showed the nearest listed species occurrence record to be for the least tern (Sterna albifrons) - approximately 1.4 miles from the Project Site. The red-cockaded woodpecker - RCW (Picoides borealis) had two observation points: one historic point in proximity to the intersection of David Boulevard and Radio Road (approximately 2 miles southeast of the Project site) and one associated with recent RCW activity near the Collier County Landfill (approximately 3.5 miles east of the Project site). No gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) observation points were shown within the 5-mile project radius; however, it was known from personal experience that tortoises exist in the project vicinity. The project site contained no U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) designated listed species critical habitat. 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 590 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 3001 SB CPUD LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA UPDATE 4 P:\Active_Projects\P-RACE-003\001_SB3001 RaceTrac Co. RAI\Submittals\County The field survey consisted of one ecologist performing meandering pedestrian transects spaced approximately 50 to 200 feet on center based on habitat type and visibility limits. The approximate locations of transects performed during each listed species survey are indicated on Figure 1 entitled FLUCCS, Listed Species, & Transect Exhibit. Given the nature of the parcel, the ecologist is anticipated to have visually observed approximately 100% of the improved, mowed and landscaped grounds and over 80% of the remainder of the parcel. Transects were conducted between 8:00 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. on March 18, 2018 and between 11:30 and 12:30 on April 1, 2020. Weather conditions were as follows: temperature 65 F, wind 0 mph, clear skies, no precipitation; and 76 F, wind 0 mph, clear skies, no precipitation, respectively. The field observer was equipped with a compass, GPS, aerials, wildlife and plant identification books, binoculars, and a field notebook. During pedestrian transects, the ecologist periodically stopped, looked for wildlife, signs of wildlife, and listened for wildlife vocalizations. Based on the habitats present on the parcel (not to the exclusion of other listed species), the ecologist specifically surveyed for the potential presence of the Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi), gopher tortoise, Big Cypress fox squirrel (Sciurus niger avicennia), and trees containing cavities that could potentially be used for roosting by the Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus). 2.2. Listed Plant Survey During the course of conducting surveys for listed wildlife species, the PE ecologist searched for plants listed by the Florida Department of Agriculture (FDA) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). These agencies have categorized the various plant species based upon their relative abundance in natural communities. Those categorizations include “Endangered”, “Threatened” and “Commercially Exploited”. The protection afforded plants listed by FDA entails restrictions on harvesting or destroying plants found on private lands of another, or public lands, without permission and/or a permit from FDA. There are no restrictions for landowners, unless the sale of plants is involved. These provisions are found in Section 581.185, FDA under State law. 2.3. Habitat Mapping The habitat survey included the preparation of a Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS) map delineating the major vegetation communities, landforms, and land uses present on the project site. A FLUCCS Map for the project site is provided as Figure 1 entitled FLUCCS, Listed Species, & Transect Exhibit. The methods and class descriptions found in the FLUCCS manual (FDOT, 1999) were followed when delineating and assigning areas to an appropriate FLUCCS category (class) or “codes”. Plant communities were mapped using direct field observations and aerial photo interpretation. Color aerial photos were plotted at 1” = 60’ scale and were used in the field to map the vegetative communities on the site. 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 591 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 3001 SB CPUD LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA UPDATE 5 P:\Active_Projects\P-RACE-003\001_SB3001 RaceTrac Co. RAI\Submittals\County A factor in mapping vegetative associations and local habitats is the invasion by the exotic plant species, such as melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia), Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius), and earleaf acacia (Acacia auriculiformis). Four levels of exotic density are typically recognized. Code modifiers may be appended to the base FLUCCS code to indicate the approximate density of exotic vegetation in the canopy or understory, as follows: E1 = Exotics 10-24% E2 = Exotics 25-49% E3 = Exotics 50-75% E4 = Exotics 75<% The Collier County LDC identifies nine (9) wellfields located within county limits that require special protection. Their locations and protection zones are illustrated in Collier County LDC section 3.06.06. Projects that are located within any of the wellfields, or their protection zones, are required to abide by requirements described in LDC section 3.06.00 – Groundwater Protection. 3. SURVEY RESULTS 3.1. Listed Wildlife Species Observed/Identified on Site No listed wildlife species were observed on site during the listed species survey. Non-listed wildlife species were noted during the surveys and they are listed in Table 1. 3.2. Listed Wildlife Species Not Observed but With Potential to Occur on Site The following is a discussion of listed wildlife species that were not confirmed during the survey as occurring on the project site but were considered to have the potential to occur due to the presence of suitable habitat, or recent confirmed sightings in the region. These species are included in Table 2. The Big Cypress fox squirrel (BCFS): The BCFS distribution is believed to be limited to an area south of the Caloosahatchee River and west to the Everglades. The BCFS is usually associated with FLUCCS codes 411, 621, and 624. The BCFS could potentially inhabit the landscaped areas and forest edge associated with the Goodwill Industries facility grounds; however, no evidence of the BCFS (e.g., direct sightings, nests, or day beds) was observed on site during either survey. The Florida bonneted bat: The Project Site falls within the FWS consultation area for this species. There is relatively little known about the life-history needs of the species. However, it has been suggested in the literature that roosts may be a limiting resource for this bat. No trees with cavities that could serve as potential roost sites for the bonneted bat were identified during the 2018 listed species survey. However, since that time, approximately seven (7) slash pine trees have died on the property ranging in size from 6” to 16” DBH. Two of the snags contained small, unenlarged woodpecker cavities, and cavities in one of the two trees was observed to be occupied by the common starling. No large or mature living trees with deformities, such as large cavities, hollows, broken tops, loose bark, and other evidence of decay, were observed on site. Based upon the lack of living trees with potential to support maternal roosting by bonneted bats, 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 592 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 3001 SB CPUD LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA UPDATE 6 P:\Active_Projects\P-RACE-003\001_SB3001 RaceTrac Co. RAI\Submittals\County and since the two observed snags containing cavities that were either judged to be of insufficient size to support such roosting or were already occupied by other species, it is not reasonable to anticipate that roosting by the bonneted bat occurs on site. The survey method employed was not designed to determine regional species presence or absence. Therefore, given that this species ranges widely to forage, there remains the potential for the species to commute or forage over the parcel. Per the FWS October 2019 guidance, since the foraging habitat on site is less than 50 acres in size, loss of the little natural area that exists on site is not expected to significantly impair the ability of individual bonneted bats to feed and breed and is, therefore, not likely to adversely affect the species. Eastern indigo snake: Eastern indigo snakes inhabit pine forests, hardwood hammocks, scrub and other uplands. They also rely heavily on a variety of wetland habitats for feeding and temperature regulation needs. It is typically assumed by the FWS that there is potential for the species to be present on nearly any site in Southwest Florida. However, with low on-site upland habitat quality, it is unlikely that the indigo snake would occur on site. Though no longer listed, the Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) has the potential to roam the region. As such, consideration was given as to whether the proposed project was at risk of bears being attracted to refuse generated by the project and whether additional steps were warranted to minimize the potential for bears to raid dumpster(s) on site. Generally, the project is located on the western fringe of Golden Gate City, a very urbanizes center where bears would not be anticipated to frequent. This was confirmed in the lack of records of bears raiding outdoor feed and trash cans in the region surrounding the project (as obtained from the FWC data base) – i.e., the project is not located in any of the nuisance bear hot spots shown on attached Figure 2. Lastly, the nature of RaceTrac facilities is that they are busy with human activity being open for business 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, they are well lit at night, and the refuse is kept in dumpsters in gated enclosures – making bear attraction or access to them sufficiently improbable. As such, it is not believed that additional actions or mechanisms are necessary to further minimize the near zero potential for bear attraction to the property. 3.3. Listed Plant Species Observed on Site No listed plants were observed on site during the listed species survey. 3.4. Habitat Mapping Natural and semi-natural areas of the Project site are comprised primarily of pine flatwoods (all lacking saw palmetto - some being mowed and some being un-maintained). The unmaintained flatwoods have various degrees of exotic vegetation (predominantly ear-leaf acacia and Brazilian pepper). High winds associated with Hurricane Irma in 2017 snapped trees off, pushed them over, and significantly tangled the existing canopy and midstory vegetation. The remainder of the site is mowed landscape, fenced playground area, and facility hardscape. Per the Collier County Property Appraiser web site, the property was issued four permits to make improvements to the parcel (permit # 83-121 and 83-1568 in 1983 for church and parking, 85-932 in 1985 for a picnic shelter, and 93-12642 in 1994 for a mobile home and deck). Site clearing and subsequent landscape maintenance was conducted in association with those permits. 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 593 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 3001 SB CPUD LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA UPDATE 7 P:\Active_Projects\P-RACE-003\001_SB3001 RaceTrac Co. RAI\Submittals\County This assessment anticipates that there are no state or federal jurisdictional wetlands or surface waters on site. This will be verified by the appropriate regulatory agencies during permit review. The project is not located within any of the nine County wellfields, or their protection zones, described in Collier County LDC section 3.06.06. A detailed description of each FLUCCS code is provided in Appendix A. Figure 1 provides a map showing the vegetative associations found on the parcel. Of the 6.40-acre site, 1.42 acres of it are considered native habitat per Collier County definition. Per the native vegetation preservation requirement, 15% (0.21 acres) of the existing native vegetation would require preservation (1.42 x 15% = 0.21 acres). The Applicant desires to satisfy the native vegetation preservation requirement off site in accordance with LDC Section 3.05.07.H.1.f. 4. SUMMARY Results of the survey reflect that there were no listed flora or fauna observed on site. Though not observed on site, there is potential for the site to be opportunistically used by the Eastern indigo snake, the Big Cypress fox squirrel, and the bonneted bat based upon the habitat present on site - though the potential is near zero given the site’s lack of potential roost locations for the bonneted bat, the relatively intense surrounding development, the site’s dense and tangled midstory and groundcover, and the site being bounded by two arterial roadways. Additionally, this assessment anticipates that there are no state or federal jurisdictional wetlands or surface waters on site, and the project is not located within any of the County’s nine wellfield protect zones. Lastly, the Applicant proposes to satisfy the County’s native vegetation preservation requirement off site in accordance with LDC 3.05.07.H.1.f. 5. REFERENCES CITED Florida Department of Transportation. 1999. Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System. Procedure No. 550-010-001-a. Third Edition. Tallahassee, Florida. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2016. Florida’s Endangered and Threatened Species. Tallahassee, Florida. 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 594 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 3001 SB CPUD LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA UPDATE P:\Active_Projects\P-RACE-003\001_SB3001 RaceTrac Co. RAI\Submittals\County TABLES 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 595 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 3001 SB CPUD LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA UPDATE 9 P:\Active_Projects\P-RACE-003\001_SB3001 RaceTrac Co. RAI\Submittals\County Table 1: Non-listed Wildlife Species Observed Common Name Scientific Name Birds Blue jay Cyanocitta cristata Red-bellied woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus Common starling Sturnus vulgaris Boat-tailed grackle Quiscalus major Northern cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis Amphibians & Reptiles Green anole Anolis carolinensis Mammals Rabbit Sylvagus spp. Gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensis Table 2 : Estimated Probability of Occurrence of Non-Observed Listed Faunal Species Common Name Scientific Name Status (FWC/FWS) Estimated Occurrence* Habitat by FLUCCS Probable Possible Unlikely Mammals Big Cypress fox squirrel Sciurus niger avicennia T/NL X All Florida bonneted bat Eumops floridanus E/E X All Reptiles Eastern indigo snake Drymarchon corais couperi T/T X All FWC = Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission FWS = United States Fish and Wildlife Service T = Threatened E = Endangered NL = Not listed * Probable Occurrence = >50% estimated chance of occurrence on site. Possible Occurrence = <50% estimated chance of occurrence on site. Unlikely Occurrence = <5% estimated chance of occurrence on site. 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 596 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 3001 SB CPUD LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA UPDATE 10 P:\Active_Projects\P-RACE-003\001_SB3001 RaceTrac Co. RAI\Submittals\County APPENDIX A Existing Vegetative Association & Land Use Descriptions 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 597 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 3001 SB CPUD LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA UPDATE 11 P:\Active_Projects\P-RACE-003\001_SB3001 RaceTrac Co. RAI\Submittals\County Existing Vegetative Association & Land Use Detailed Descriptions Commercial and Services (FLUCCS 140) - This use represents the existing Goodwill Industries of Southwest Florida facility including buildings, parking, outdoor children’s recreation, and landscaped areas. Pine Flatwoods – Gramminoid Understory (FLUCCS 416) – This community is dominated in the canopy by slash pine (Pinus elliottii), cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), earleaf acacia (acacia auriculiformis), and java plum (Syzygium cumini). The midstory may be absent in the maintained landscaped areas or may include Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) and the previously-noted canopy species. Groundcover includes bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), beautyberry (Callicarpa americana), and various ruderal species. Vines are abundant and include muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia), catbriar (Smilax spp.), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). Pine Flatwoods – Gramminoid Understory, Disturbed (FLUCCS 416D) – This community is composed of a sparse canopy of slash pine over mowed lawn. Brazilian Pepper (FLUCCS 422) – This community is dominated in the canopy and/or midstory by Brazilian pepper. Groundcover is largely absent. Exotics 10-24% (Major FLUCCS Code + E1) This FLUCCS code modifier refers to a vegetative community that has been invaded by the exotic species such that they comprise between 10% and 24% of the vegetative cover. Exotics 25-49% (Major FLUCCS Code + E2) This FLUCCS code modifier refers to a vegetative community that has been invaded by exotic species such that they comprise between 25% and 49% of the vegetative cover. Exotics 50-75% (Major FLUCCS Code + E3) This FLUCCS code modifier refers to a vegetative community that has been invaded by exotic species such that they comprise between 50 and 75% of the vegetative cover. Exotics >75% (Major FLUCCS Code + E4) This FLUCCS code modifier refers to a vegetative community that has been invaded by exotic species such that they comprise greater than 75 percent of the vegetative cover, and still retains at least 10% native tree canopy coverage. 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 598 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 3001 SB CPUD LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA UPDATE 12 P:\Active_Projects\P-RACE-003\001_SB3001 RaceTrac Co. RAI\Submittals\County FIGURE 1 FLUCCS, Listed Species, & Transect Exhibit 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 599 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 3001 SB CPUD LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA UPDATE 13 P:\Active_Projects\P-RACE-003\001_SB3001 RaceTrac Co. RAI\Submittals\County 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 600 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 3001 SB CPUD LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA UPDATE 14 P:\Active_Projects\P-RACE-003\001_SB3001 RaceTrac Co. RAI\Submittals\County FIGURE 2 Nuisance Bear in Feed, Feeder, Garbage Location Map 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 601 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 3001 SB CPUD LISTED SPECIES SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA UPDATE 15 P:\Active_Projects\P-RACE-003\001_SB3001 RaceTrac Co. RAI\Submittals\County 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 602 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 603 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 604 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 605 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 606 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 607 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 608 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 609 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 610 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 611 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 612 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 613 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 614 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 615 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 616 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 617 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 618 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 619 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 620 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 621 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 622 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 623 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 624 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 625 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 626 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 627 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 628 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 629Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 630Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 631 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 632 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 633 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 634 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 635 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 636Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 637Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 638 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 639Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 640 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 641Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 642 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 643 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 644 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 645 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 646Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 647 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 648Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 649 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 650 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 651 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 652 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 653 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 654 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 655 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 656 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 657 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 658 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 659 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 660 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 661 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 662 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 663 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 664Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 665 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 666 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 667 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 668 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 669 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 670 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 671 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 672 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 673 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 674 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 675 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 676 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 677 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 678 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 679 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 680 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 681 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 682 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 683 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 684 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 685 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 686 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 687 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 688 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 689 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 3001 SB CPUD (PL20200000386) Deviation Justification December 22, 2020 Page 1 of 3 RTSBGG-20 Deviation Justification-r3.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com 1. Deviation 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.05.05.C.4.b., “Signage for Facilities with Fuel Pumps-Canopy Sign Area”, which limits the maximum sign area for the canopy to one twelve (12) square foot corporate logo to instead allow one fifty (50) square foot corporate logo on the north canopy front façade facing Golden Gate Parkway and two thirty (30) square foot corporate logo signs on the side facades facing east to Santa Barbara Boulevard and west facing the adjacent commercial parcel, if convenience store with fuel pumps is developed on the easternmost tract within the PUD. Justification: RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc. does not have a corporate logo similar to some other corporate gas station companies. The corporate logo for RaceTrac is their name and by limiting their logo to the allowed twelve (12) square feet results in an 8.4’ wide sign with 1.4’ high letters. With their letter size reduced the sign would be difficult to read on the canopy and possibly unrecognizable, if convenience store with fuel pumps is developed on the easternmost tract within the PUD. In addition, RaceTrac wishes to have a recognizable appearance in Collier County. Color banding is prohibited; therefore, it is important that their logo on the fuel canopy to be recognizable. This recognition is important for motorist traveling on Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard who wish to enter the RaceTrac. The signage needs to be recognizable from a distance so drivers can safely maneuver as needed to enter the Project. Both roadways in front of the project are 6-lane major arterial roadways. With speeds under green light conditions approaching 50 MPH, vehicles travel nearly 75 feet per second. Allowing the drivers to recognize the destination in time to safely maneuver to the needed turning movements is a critical element of the canopy signage. 2. Deviation 2 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.05.05.C.4.b., “Signage for Facilities with Fuel Pumps-Canopy Sign Location”, which only allows canopy signs on the canopy face that is adjacent to a right-of-way to instead allow a canopy sign on the west side of the fuel canopy not adjacent to a right-of-way in addition to the permitted canopy signs, if a convenience store with fuel pumps is developed on the easternmost tract within the PUD. Justification: RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc. has frontage on both Golden Gate Parkway to the north and Santa Barbara Boulevard to the east. Canopy signage is proposed along each of these rights-of-way and a canopy sign 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 690 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) Page 2 of 3 is also proposed on the west side of the fuel canopy. Although the west side of the fuel canopy is not adjacent to a right-of-way, the wide Golden Gate Parkway right-of-way and larger buffer required for facilities with fuel pumps limits the view to potential east-bound customers on Golden Gate Parkway until they are close to passing the site. In addition, RaceTrac is not allowed a color band on the fuel canopy and the proposed sign on the west-facing canopy allows potential customers to see the store sooner giving them more time to make necessary lane changes to safely enter the site. The front canopy signage is relatively close and parallel to the roadway. In this alignment the motorist’s view, detecting and reading a sign is generally restricted to quick sideways glances as the sign is approached and the angle of view becomes more constricted. The proposed signs on the ends of the canopy are to allow the preferred perpendicular signage, which can be recognized much easier by drivers. 3. Deviation 3 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.05.05.B.1., “Signage for Facilities with Fuel Pumps-Site Design Requirements”, which establishes the minimum side and rear setbacks for all structures as 40 feet to instead allow for the side and rear yard setbacks internal to the PUD boundary to be reduced to 25 feet. This deviation is applicable only to internal parcel boundaries and is not applicable to side and rear yard setbacks measured to the PUD boundary. Justification: The reduction in the requirements for internal rear yard setbacks will provide the developer greater flexibility in land planning the parcels. The proposed deviation will not impact external property owners as it is only applicable to internal parcel boundaries. 4. Deviation 4 seeks relief from LDC 4.06.02, Table 2.4, footnote 3, Buffer Requirements, which allows for the required buffer between commercial outparcels to be shared with a total width of 15 feet (7.5 feet on each parcel) to instead allow for shared buffers between commercial outparcels to have a minimum required width of ten feet (five feet on each parcel). Justification: This deviation would provide for greater flexibility in parcel layouts and will create better ability for pedestrian movement between outparcels. The limitation in internal buffer width between commercial outparcels. The internal buffering between two outparcels will not impact the residential dwelling located west of the CPUD, as the project will be providing an average 75 foot wide buffer along the western PUD boundary with a Type ‘B’ Buffer opacity. 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 691 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) Page 3 of 3 5. Deviation 5 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.05.D.2., “Plant Material Standards”, which requires all required new individual trees, shall be species having an average mature spread or crown of greater than 20 feet in the Collier County area and having trunk(s) which can be maintained in a clean condition over five feet of clear wood. Trees adjacent to walkways, bike paths and rights-of-way shall be maintained in a clean condition over eight feet of clear wood. Trees having an average mature spread or crown less than 20 feet may be substituted by grouping the same so as to create the equivalent of 20-foot crown spread. For code-required trees, the trees at the time of installation shall be a minimum of 25 gallon, ten feet in height, have a 1¾-inch caliper (at 12 inches above the ground) and a four-foot spread to instead allow the trees planted within the reduced buffers between outparcels to have less than a 20 foot spread and without the need to provide them in groupings. The balance of trees required in the outparcel buffers will be provided for within the PUD western perimeter buffer. Justification: This deviation will be in conjunction with the deviation which permits the reduction in buffer widths between outparcels. This will allow the internal buffers to be planted in a manner that will promote the healthy growth of the vegetation within the unified plan of development. There is no net reduction in trees as the deviation requires the overall number to be achieved with plantings in the wider PUD western perimeter buffer. 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 692 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 693 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. Ph. 239-947-1144 Fax. 239-947-0375 3800 Via Del Rey EB 0005151 LB 0005151 LC 26000266 Bonita Springs, FL 34134 www.gradyminor.com Project Location Map NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING Petition PL20200000385 Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict and Petition PL20200000386 3001 SB CPUD Rezone A Neighborhood Information Meeting hosted by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. and Richard D. Yovanovich of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., representing RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc. (Applicant) will be held on Thursday, August 13, 2020, 5:30 pm at Parkway Life Church, 5975 Golden Gate Pkwy, Naples, FL 34116. Individuals who would like to participate remotely, should contact Sharon Umpenhour at 239-947-1144 or sumpenhour@gradyminor.com. Project information is posted online at www.gradyminor.com/planning. RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc. has submitted formal applications to Collier County, seeking approval of a Small-Scale Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) and Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) rezone. The GMPA proposes to create a new subdistrict in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub- Element to allow up to 21,500 square feet of general commercial uses in the subdistrict and rezone the property from the E, Estates Zoning District to CPUD Zoning District. The subject property (Parcel Number 38170040001) is comprised of approximately 6.4± acres, located on the Southwest quadrant of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard in Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. If you are unable to attend the meeting or have questions or comments, please contact Sharon Umpenhour with Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, Florida 34134. Email: sumpenhour@gradyminor.com, phone: 239-947-1144, fax: 239-947-0375. The Neighborhood Information Meeting is for informational purposes only, it is not a public hearing. 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 694 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 1NAME1 NAME2 NAME3 NAME4 NAME5 NAME6 LEGAL1 LEGAL2 LEGAL3 LEGAL4 FOLIO2772 SANTA BARBARA LLC 999 VANDERBILT BEACH RD #200NAPLES, FL 34108---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 6 BLK 228 BEG AT PERM REF MONU ON E LI OF SANTA BARBARA BLVD & W LI OF BLK 228, RUN N 0DEG E 11.11 363266800002772 SANTA BARBARA LLC 999 VANDERBILT BEACH RD #200NAPLES, FL 34108---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 6 BLK 228 BEG PERM REF MON'T ON E LI SANTA BARBARA BLVD & W LI OF BLK 228 N 0 DEG E 11.11 FT, 38.52 FT 363266900035472 GOLDEN GATE PKWY TRUST 9297 GLENFOREST DRNAPLES, FL 34120---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 230 LOT 7 & N 10FT OF ALLEY ADJ TO S LI OF LOT 7 VACATED BY OR 2040 PG 177, LESS THAT PART OF 36430280008ABLE ACADEMY INC 5860 GOLDEN GATE PKWYNAPLES, FL 34116---0 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 E 150FT OF TR 7638166640004ALVAREZ, ANA C MARIO ALEJANDRO ALVAREZ 5720 PAINTED LEAF LN NAPLES, FL 34116---0 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 W 150FT OF TR 9938168880008ALVAREZ-PEREZ, YAMIRLA CARLOS J HERNANDEZ-RODRIGUEZ 3018 55TH TER SW NAPLES, FL 34116---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 268 LOT 636458240004ALYMOV, VADIM 5825 GOLDEN GATE PKWYNAPLES, FL 34116---7458 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 E 180FT OF TR 8238167080003AMELUNGE, G ADOLFO APONTE DE APONTE CAROLA MENDEZ 5646 GREENS DR ALLENTOWN, PA 18106---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 269 LOT 19 OR 1876 PG 23536459680003AMERICAN PROPERTIES GROUP LLC 1205 PIPER BLVD #101NAPLES, FL 34110---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 230 LOT 28 & THAT PORTION OF VACA- TED ALLEY ADJ TO N LI OF LOT 28 VACATED BY OR 2035 PG 1367 36431120002AQUINO, RAMIRO E JIMENEZ 3001 54TH LANE SWNAPLES, FL 34116---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 267 LOT 1636457840007ARIAS, FELIPE 2755 55TH ST SWNAPLES, FL 34116---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 6 BLK 227 LOT 2436326600006AZWOIR, NAZININA F 5770 PAINTED LEAF LANENAPLES, FL 34116---0 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 W 180FT OF TR 90 OR 1257 PG 92938168120001BEL, ANDRES 5775 GOLDEN GATE PKWYNAPLES, FL 34116---0 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 E 75FT OF W 180FT OF TR 9138168240004BIRSA, SERGIO & MARIAN E 2881 SANTA BARBARA BLVDNAPLES, FL 34116---7431 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 S 180FT OF TR 110 OR 1837 PG 232838169840005BRAVO, MAYRA 3054 55TH TER SWNAPLES, FL 34116---8034 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 268 LOT 836458320005BREINING, JENNIFER 5501 29TH PL SWNAPLES, FL 34116---8058 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 230 LOT 22 & S 10FT OF ALLEY ADJ TO N LI OF LOT 22 VACATED BY OR 2035 PG 1367 36430880000BRICENO, EDGARD E & MYRIAM G 3211 SANTA BARBARA BLVDNAPLES, FL 34116---7424 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 N 180FT OF TR 11738170240005BROWN, ERIC ALDEN 5700 PAINTED LEAF LANENAPLES, FL 34106---7449 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 E 180FT OF TR 9938168920007BRYANT, SANDRA F 2995 55TH TER SWNAPLES, FL 34116---8031 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 269 LOT 1536459520008CAJUSTE, WISLY & MERCE 3036 55TH TER SWNAPLES, FL 34116---8034 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 268 LOT 736458280006CAPRICORNIO INVESTMENT LLC 15275 COLLIER BLVD #201 / 269NAPLES, FL 34119---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 269 LOT 836459240003CAPRICORNIO INVESTMENT LLC 15275 COLLIER BLVD #201 / 269NAPLES, FL 34119---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 269 LOT 1036459320004CAPRICORNIO INVESTMENT LLC 15275 COLLIER BLVD #201 / 269NAPLES, FL 34119---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 269 LOT 1136459360006CAPRICORNIO INVESTMENT LLC 15275 COLLIER BLVD #201/269NAPLES, FL 34119---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 269 LOT 936459280005CARMONA, MARCELA G JAVIER CORNELIO 2996 55TH TER SW NAPLES, FL 34116---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 268 LOT 436458160003CHAPMAN, BEVERLY J 5731 GOLDEN GATE PKWYNAPLES, FL 34116---7460 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 W 150FT OF TR 9838168840006CHAVARRIAGA & MARIN REV TRUST 5911 STAR GRASS LANENAPLES, FL 34116---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 269 LOT 436459080001CIROU, STEVEN W & TALITHA C E 2915 SANTA BARBARA BLVDNAPLES, FL 34116---7429 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 N 180FT OF TR 11138169920006COLGAN, MARK & SUSAN 5721 ENGLISH OAKS LANENAPLES, FL 34119---0 SANTA BARBARA CLUB A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 772580280006COLGAN, MARK C & SUSAN 5721 ENGLISH OAKS LANENAPLES, FL 34119---0 SANTA BARBARA CLUB A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 672580240004COLLIER CHILD CARE RESOURCES INC 2335 TAMIAMI TRL N STE 504 NAPLES, FL 34103---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 269 LOTS 1, 2 & 3 OR 1353 PGS 2350 -2353, LESS THAT PORTION OF R/W PER OR 4088 PG 85 36458960009COLLIER CNTY TECM/ROW 2885 HORSESHOE DR SNAPLES, FL 34104---6130 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 230 LOT 2 & N 10FT OF ALLEY ADJ TO S LI OF LOT 2 VACATED BY OR 2040 PG 177 LESS A PORTION OF 36430080004COLLIER CNTY TECM/ROW 2885 HORSESHOE DR SNAPLES, FL 34104---6130 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 230 LOT 3 & N 10FT OF ALLEY ADJ TO S LI OF LOT 3 VACATED BY OR 2040 PG 177 LESS A PORTION OF 36430120003COLLIER CNTY TECM/ROW 2885 HORSESHOE DR SNAPLES, FL 34104---6130 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 230 LOT 4 & N 10FT OF ALLEY ADJ T0 S LI OF LOT 4 VACATED BY OR 2040 PG 177 LESS A PORTION OF 36430160005COLLIER CNTY TECM/ROW 2885 HORSESHOE DR SNAPLES, FL 34104---6130 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 230 LOT 5 & N 10FT OF ALLEY ADJ TO S LI OF LOT 5 VACATED BY OR 2040 PG 177 LESS A PORTION OF 36430200004COLLIER CNTY TECM/ROW 2885 HORSESHOE DR SNAPLES, FL 34104---6130 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 230 LOT 6 & N 10FT OF ALLEY ADJ TO S LI OF LOT 6 VACATED BY OR 2040 PG 177 LESS A PORTION OF 36430240006COLLIER CNTY TECM/ROW 2885 HORSESHOE DR SNAPLES, FL 34104---6130 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 230 LOT 1 & N 10FT OF ALLEY ADJ TO S LI OF LOT 1 VACATED BY OR 2040 PG 177 LESS A PORTION OF 36430040002CRUZ, JOSE & MILDRED PO BOX 471NAPLES, FL 34106---471 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 267 LOT 20 OR 1472 PG 235836458000008DAYE, MICHAEL R & SUSAN F 3019 55TH TER SWNAPLES, FL 34116---8033 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 269 LOT 17 OR 2066 PG 64336459600009DELANY, THOMAS H DEBBIE A KOEHLER 2969 54TH LN SW NAPLES, FL 34116---8023 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 267 LOT 19 OR 1435 PG 177236457960000DESIR, SUZE 3072 55TH TER SWNAPLES, FL 34116---8034 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 268 LOT 936458360007DIETRICH TR, FRED J & LEEANN DIETRICH FAMILY TRUST UTD 6/26/06 3150 58TH ST SW NAPLES, FL 34116---7406 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 S 180FT OF TR 9438168520009DISARRO, ANTHONY J & CATHERINE 3110 58TH ST SWNAPLES, FL 34116---7406 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 N 180FT OF TR 93 OR 1293 PG 178038168360007DISARRO, NICOLA & JEAN 5724 GOLDEN GATE PKWYNAPLES, FL 34116---7461 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 E 105 FT OF W 225FT OF TR 9738168760005DORIA, REYNALDO & MARY J PO BOX 8262NAPLES, FL 34101---8262 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 N 150FT OF TR 78 OR 759 PG 121538166840008ERICKSON, LOUIS & BARBARA S 1025 CAPRI DRNAPLES, FL 34103---2540 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 268 LOT 536458200002EXANTUS, KERLANDE GILNICK VYLCIN 3019 54TH LANE SW NAPLES, FL 34116---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 267 LOT 15 OR 525 PG 32236457800005FERNANDEZ, YUDITH B 5560 29TH PL SWNAPLES, FL 34116---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 269 LOT 1236459400005FL-GA DISTRICT OF THE LUTHERAN CHURCH-MISSOURI SYNOD 5850 T G LEE BLVD STE 500 ORLANDO, FL 32789---0 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 TR 81 OR 1380 PG 40138167040001FLORA B ESPINOSA TRUST 3131 58TH ST SWNAPLES, FL 34116---7405 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 N 165FT OF TR 7738166721004FLORA B ESPINOSA TRUST 3131 58TH ST SWNAPLES, FL 34116---7405 GOLDEN GATE ESTATES UNIT #30 TRACT 77 LOT 138170284058FORESYTH, BERTRAM L & DOROTHY 3073 55TH TER SWNAPLES, FL 34116---8033 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 269 LOT 20 OR 1548 PG 152036459720002GALAN, JUAN EDUARDO C/O HECTOR PROSPERI 3550 ZANZIBAR WAY NAPLES, FL 34119---1619 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 268 LOT 136458040000GGC PLAZA INV LLC 2055 TRADE CENTER WAYNAPLES, FL 34109---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 6 BLK 219 LOTS 29, 30, 31 & S 10FT OF ALLEY ADJ TO N LINE VACATED BY RES 95-639 IN OR 2126 PG 1968 36320000000GHANSHYAMBHAI M PATEL REVOCABLE TRUST 3091 55TH TERR SW NAPLES, FL 34116---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 269 LOT 1636459560000GILHOOLEY, GWYNNETH 5470 29TH PL SWNAPLES, FL 34116---8063 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 231 LOT 13 OR 715 PG 72036431640003GILHOOLEY, JEROME JOHN 23122 SW 113TH PLMAIMI, FL 33170---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 231 LOT 1236431600001GONZALEZ, DIOSDADO A & OLGA C 3115 55TH TER SWNAPLES, FL 34116---8035 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 269 LOT 23 OR 1787 PG 83336459840005GOODWILL INDUST OF SW FL INC ATTN: ACCOUNTING 5100 TICE ST FORT MYERS, FL 33905---0 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 TR 113 AND THE N 150FT OF TR 114, LESS THAT PORTION AS DESC IN OR 3476 PG 1315 AND LESS THAT 38170040001GRAZIANI, RONEN & LEEANNE W 410 29TH ST NWNAPLES, FL 34120---0 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 N 150FT OF TR 11038169880007GULAPA, ROLAND E & MARY B 3140 58TH ST SWNAPLES, FL 34116---7406 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 N 150FT OF TR 9438168480000GUTIERREZ, SILFREDO SANDRA LORENZO 3131 55TH TER SW NAPLES, FL 34116---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 269 LOT 2436459880007GUZMAN, MAYRA 211 17TH ST SWNAPLES, FL 34117---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 267 LOT 1836457920008HAMILTON, ORRINGTON TRACIA A WILLIAMS HAMILTON 5470 16TH PL SW # 105 NAPLES, FL 34116---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 6 BLK 227 LOTS 1 + 236325720000HOOD, COTRENIA DAVENPORT RICHARD HOOD 5761 GOLDEN GATE PKWY NAPLES, FL 34116---0 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 E 150FT OF TR 9138168160003HUFF, MICHAEL P NAZININA F AZWOIR 5770 PAINTED LEAF LANE NAPLES, FL 34116---0 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 E 150FT OF TR 90 OR 734 PG 194538168080002ISME, FRITZLY 3054 54TH LN SWNAPLES, FL 34116---8026 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 231 LOT 736431400007J M & M L CERNECK TRUST CIROU, STEVEN W=& TALITHA C E 2915 SANTA BARBARA BLVD NAPLES, FL 34116---0 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 S 150FT OF TR 11138169960008JFD NAPLES LLC 11693 BALD EAGLE WAYNAPLES, FL 34120---4320 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 269 LOT 7 OR 1410 PG 236459200001JOSEPH A ROSIN REV TRUST % CHRIS HENNING III 555 SKOKIE BLVD #350 NORTHBROOK, IL 60062---0 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 TR 11238170000009K & R HOMETECH LLC 131 25TH ST SWNAPLES, FL 34117---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 6 BLK 226 LOT 2036325680001KIRKLAND, DIANA L 2748 SANTA BARBARA BLVD # 8NAPLES, FL 34116---0 SANTA BARBARA CLUB A CONDOMINIUM UNIT 872580320005LAGEMAN, CHAR P 5496 28TH AVE SWNAPLES, FL 34116---7516 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 6 BLK 219 LOT 1 AND N 10FT OF ALLEY ADJ TO S LINE OF LOT 1 VACATED BY RES 95-639 IN OR 2126 PG 1968 36318920008LAGUNAS, BALTAZAR 5547 29TH PL SWNAPLES, FL 34116---8058 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 230 LOT 25 & S 10FT OF ALLEY ADJ TO N LI OF LOT 25 VACATED BY OR 2035 PG 1367 36431000009LORA-TREJO, EZEQUIEL MARIA A MARTINEZ-SANCHEZ 2971 55TH TER SW NAPLES, FL 34116---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 269 LOT 1336459440007MALIK, MOHAMMED WAQAS 3549 CANOPY CIRCLENAPLES, FL 34120---0 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 W 180FT OF TR 9238168280006MARK, CHRISTOPHER 5740 GOLDEN GATE PKWYNAPLES, FL 34116---0 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 E150FT OF TR 9238168320005Notice: 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: PL20200000386 & PL20200000385 | Buffer: 1000' | Date: 6/30/2020 | Site Location: 38170040001Copy of POList_1000_PL20200000386-PL20200000385.xls9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 695Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 2MARTIN, JEANETTE 3191 SANTA BARBARA BLVDNAPLES, FL 34116---7424 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 S 180FT OF TR 11638170160004MARTINEZ, ANTONIO MARIA RIVERO 2190 53RD ST SW NAPLES, FL 34116---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 6 BLK 226 LOT 336325000005MC DONALD, ROBIN M 3185 58TH ST SWNAPLES, FL 34116---7405 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 S 180FT OF TR 7838166760007MCCANNA, CYNTHIA JEAN 3037 55TH TER SWNAPLES, FL 34116---8033 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 269 LOT 1836459640001METZGER, MARIA T 3000 54TH LN SWNAPLES, FL 34116---8026 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 231 LOT 1036431520000MG3 NAPLES SCHOOL LLC 2980 NE 207TH ST SUITE 603AVENTURA, FL 33180---0 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 S 180FT OF TR 114 + ALL TR 115 + N 150FT OF TR 116 38170120002MIGUEL, LEONARDO 5531 29TH PL SWNAPLES, FL 34116---8058 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 230 LOT 24 & S 10FT OF ALLEY ADJ TO N LI OF LOT 24 VACATED BY OR 2035 PG 1367 36430960001MOLINA, DAVID 2717 55TH TER SWNAPLES, FL 34116---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 6 BLK 226 LOT 1836325600007MORRIS JR, CHARLES ARTHUR 3077 54TH LANE S WNAPLES, FL 34116---8025 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 267 LOT 12 OR 1819 PG 42436457680005NAGAJ, ROBERT G 5497 29TH PL SWNAPLES, FL 34116---8061 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 230 LOT 21 & S 10FT OF ALLEY ADJ TO N LI OF LOT 21 VACATED BY OR 2035 PG 1367 36430840008NAPLES BRIDGE CENTER INC 5865 GOLDEN GATE PKWYNAPLES, FL 34116---7458 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 E 150FT OF TR 75 AND W 150FT OF TR 8238166600002NAPLES VENTURE III LLC 555 SKOKIE BLVD STE 350NORTHBROOK, IL 60062---0 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 E 180FT OF TR 98 OR 1408 PG 120538168800004NESTOR-DISARRO, WILLIAM P 5730 GOLDEN GATE PKWYNAPLES, FL 34116---0 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 W 120 FT OF TR 9738168680004NORBRUN, GUERLINE 3037 54TH LN SWNAPLES, FL 34116---8025 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 267 LOT 1436457760006ORJUELA, MARIA 2983 55TH TER SW UNIT BNAPLES, FL 34116---8011 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 269 LOT 1436459480009OZTURK, SEBIHA 6940 GOLDEN GATE PKWYNAPLES, FL 34105---0 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 S 75FT OF TR 9338168400006PAIS, ANTONIO MARLENE RODRIGUEZ 3114 55TH TER SW NAPLES, FL 34116---8036 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 268 LOT 1236458480000PATEL, GHANSHYAM 3091 55TH TER SWNAPLES, FL 34116---8033 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 269 LOT 2136459760004PATEL, GHANSHYAM 3091 55TH TER SWNAPLES, FL 34116---8033 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 269 LOT 2236459800003PEREIRO, EDWARDO & LUISA M PO BOX 7343NAPLES, FL 34101---7343 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 230 LOT 20 & S 10FT OF ALLEY ADJ TO N LI OF LOT 20 VACATED BY OR 2035 PG 1367 36430800006PEREZ, JOSE A & M YVONNE 2997 54TH LN SWNAPLES, FL 34116---8023 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 267 LOT 17 OR 1390 PG 204636457880009POLL, MANUEL MARTHA VASQUEZ 3100 55TH TERR SW NAPLES, FL 34116---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 268 LOT 1136458440008QUESADA, ISRAEL 3018 54TH LN SWNAPLES, FL 34116---8026 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 231 LOT 936431480001R&R HOME SERVICES OF FL LLC 2965 49TH LN SWNAPLES, FL 34116---0 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 6 BLK 219 LOT 2 AND N 10FT OF ALLEY ADJ TO S LINE LOT 2 VACATED BY RES 95-639 IN OR 2126 PG 1968 36318960000RAMOS, CARLOS & ALICIA3055 54TH LN SWNAPLES, FL 34116---8025GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 267 LOT 1336457720004REATEGUI, JOSEPH G3130 58TH ST SWNAPLES, FL 34116---0GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 N 75FT OF S 150FT OF TR 9338168440008REFERENCE ONLYSANTA BARBARA CLUBA CONDOMINIUMGOLDEN GATE UNIT 6 BLK 226 LOTS 1 & 2 NOW SANTA BARBARA CLUB CONDO OR 1049 PG 47936324960007REYES, WENDY2031 SANTA BARBARA BLVDNAPLES, FL 34116---0GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 230 LOT 26 & S 10FT OF ALLEY ADJ TO N LI OF LOT 26 VACATED BY OR 2035 PG 136736431040001RIVERO, VIRGINIO & ZENAIDA3091 54TH LN SWNAPLES, FL 34116---0GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 267 LOT 1136457640003ROBINSON, RUBY J2990 54TH LN SWNAPLES, FL 34116---8024GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 231 LOT 11 OR 1725 PG 59036431560002RODRIGUEZ, ALADINO & ESPERANZA 3084 SANTA BARBARA BLVDNAPLES, FL 34116---7422GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 269 LOT 6 OR 1725 PG 168136459160002RODRIGUEZ, ELOY3830 23RD AVE SWNAPLES, FL 34117---6654GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 230 LOT 27 & S 10FT OF ALLEY ADJ TO N LI OF LOT 27 VACATED BY OR 2035 PG 136736431080003RUIZ, YANET & EZEQUIEL3581 29TH AVE SWNAPLES, FL 34117---8423GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 269 LOT 536459120000SALZMANN, THOMAS F & SUSAN L PO BOX 7969NAPLES, FL 34101---7969GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 E 105FT OF TR 9738168720003SANCHEZ, JUSTINOVIRGEN MARGARITA SANCHEZ 5465 29TH PL SWNAPLES, FL 34116---8052GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 230 LOT 19 & S 10FT OF ALLEY ADJ TO N LI OF LOT 19 VACATED BY OR 2035 PG 136736430760007SANNICANDRO, JAKE & CHRISTINA 5791 GOLDEN GATE PKWYNAPLES, FL 34116---7460GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 W 105FT OF TR 9138168200002SARTA, CARMINE2972 55TH TER SWNAPLES, FL 34116---8032GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 268 LOT 236458080002SMITH, REBECCAJEREMIAH WATTS3036 54TH LN SWNAPLES, FL 34116---8026GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 231 LOT 836431440009STEPHENSON II, RICHARD E3220 58TH ST SWNAPLES, FL 34116---7407GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 30 N 180FT OF TR 9538168560001SZEMPRUCH, JOAN CAROL3101 54TH LN SWNAPLES, FL 34116---8027GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 267 LOT 1036457600001TELLO, EUDORO MARCIAL FALCONI MARIA CARIDAD GUTIERREZ CORDOBA11925 COLLIER BLVD #102 NAPLES, FL 34116---0SANTA BARBARA CLUBA CONDOMINIUM UNIT 272580080002TOBY USA LLC10301 NW 9TH ST CIR APT 202MIAMI, FL 33172---3286SANTA BARBARA CLUBA CONDOMINIUM UNIT 572580200002TRIANA, YAILENY SANCHEZ2733 55TH TER SWNAPLES, FL 34116---7527GOLDEN GATE UNIT 6 BLK 226 LOT 1936325640009VALENCIA, JACINTO A5515 29TH PL SWNAPLES, FL 34116---8058GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 230 LOT 23 & THAT PORTION OF VACA- TED ALLEY ADJ TO N LI OF LOT 23 VACATED BY OR 2035 PG 1367 36430920009WELCH, JOHN2724 SANTA BARBARA BLVD APT 3NAPLES, FL 34116---7404SANTA BARBARA CLUBA CONDOMINIUM UNIT 372580120001WENDLE CLINTON &VERA L SMALLRIDGE TRUST 318 SARA LANEMAYNARDVILLE, TN 37807---5416 GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 268 LOT 336458120001WEST COAST DEV CORP OF NA INC 1100 COMMERCIAL BLVD #118NAPLES, FL 34104---0GOLDEN GATE UNIT 6 ALL OF BLK 228, LESS THAT PART DESC IN OR 704 PG 1969, LESS THAT PART DESC IN OR 4639 PG 1746, LESS 36326640008WEST COAST DEV CORP OF NA INC 1100 COMMERCIAL BLVD #118NAPLES, FL 34104---0GOLDEN GATE UNIT 6 THAT PART OF BLOCK 228 DESC IN OR 4639 PG 1746, AND THAT PART DESC IN OR 4287 PG 214236326990101WILLIAM DIETRICH I TRUST3090 55TH TER SWNAPLES, FL 34116---8034GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 BLK 268 LOT 1036458400006ZABALA, JOSE ANDRES & DEVIN 5720 NAPA WOODS WAYNAPLES, FL 34116---0SANTA BARBARA CLUBA CONDOMINIUM UNIT 472580160003ZABALA, ROBERT ENRIQUE5866 NAPA WOODS WAYNAPLES, FL 34116---0SANTA BARBARA CLUBA CONDOMINIUM UNIT 172580040000Copy of POList_1000_PL20200000386-PL20200000385.xls9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 696Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) ND-GCI0458750-01 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING Petition PL20200000385 Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict and Petition PL20200000386 3001 SB CPUD Rezone A Neighborhood Information Meeting hosted by D.Wayne Arnold,AICP,of Q.Grady Minor & Associates,P.A.and Richard D.Yo vanovich of Coleman,Yo vanovich &Koester,P.A.,representing RaceTrac Petroleum,Inc.(Applicant)will be held on Thursday,August 13,2020,5:30 pm at Parkway Life Church,5975 Golden Gate Pkwy,Naples,FL 34116.Individuals who would like to participate remotely,should contact Sharon Umpenhour at 239-947-1144 or sumpenhour@ gradyminor.com.Project information is posted online at www.gradyminor.com/planning. RaceTrac Petroleum,Inc.has submitted formal applications to Collier County,seeking approval of a Small-Scale Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA)and Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD)rezone.The GMPA proposes to create a new subdistrict in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan,Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element to allow up to 21,500 square feet of general commercial uses in the subdistrict and rezone the property from the E,Estates Zoning District to CPUD Zoning District. The subject property (Parcel Number 38170040001)is comprised of approximately 6.4±acres, located on the Southwest quadrant of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard in Section 29,To wnship 49 South,Range 26 East,Collier County,Florida. If you are unable to attend the meeting or you have questions or comments,please contact Sharon Umpenhour at Q.Grady Minor and Associates,P.A.,3800 Via Del Rey,Bonita Springs,Florida 34134,email:sumpenhour@gradyminor.com,phone:239-947-1144,fax: 239-947-0375.The Neighborhood Information Meeting is for informational purposes only,it is not a public hearing. 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 697 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 698 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) PL20200000385 Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict and PL20200000386 3001 SB CPUD Rezone, August 13, 2020 NIM Page 1 of 12 Wayne Arnold: Well, good evening everybody. My name is Wayne Arnold, and I'm a planner with Q. Grady Minor & Associates, representing the applicant Racetrac, tonight. Have several people from our team that are present. We have Rich Yovanovich, who is the land use council. We have Yury Bykau from TR Transportation, our transportation consultant. We have Peninsula Engineering and Bruce Layman here is our environmental consultant. And this is Sharon Umpenhour, who is going to be taping and helping us with the presentation. This is also available on Zoom. We had some of the County participants are participating via Zoom and our applicant is in Atlanta tonight and couldn't make it down to Naples, so he's participating by Zoom. If there are questions, we're hoping that the audio works well enough. If not all, whatever comments are made on the computer, if we can't hear them on the audio here, I'll be happy to repeat those and we'll make sure the records um, available for everybody. Sharon's going to be also recording this. We have to provide a transcript of this meeting to the County; it's just part of the review process. Tom Hardy with Racetrac and Cleo Chang from Racetrac are both on Zoom and are available here to listen in and offer any comments as necessary. From the County, it looks like signed in, we have Nancy Gundlach, who's the principal planner in zoning, who's handling the zoning application. And Anita Jenkins – she's in charge of both zoning and planning for the County. She's here, I think, representing the conference planning site tonight for the plan amendment application that's also a companion to the zoning application. With that, Connie, if you want to just advance that to the aerial location map. So, we're here representing two applications tonight. As I mentioned, there's a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment to the Golden Gate area master plan that we're proposing. It does two things. One, there are two provisions. One of them directly affects this property. Well, they both directly affect this property, but 6.4 acres, church is existing on the site, has been for many, many years. We're proposing to create a new planning sub-district that would allow this to be commercial, in addition to the church. The application that we're proposing would allow for us to have C3 type commercial uses, as well as limited C4 general commercial uses, one of which we've identified could be a carwash. So, that's the comp plan designation we would create. There's a companion zoning amendment that would change the zoning from E-Estates to a planned unit development for commercial development. We have a master plan that I'll walk you through momentarily. 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 699 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) PL20200000385 Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict and PL20200000386 3001 SB CPUD Rezone, August 13, 2020 NIM Page 2 of 12 But there are two applications. Right now, the Golden Gate master plan does not permit true commercial development on the site. Frankly, it doesn't even permit a church by standard. The only thing that's permitted here is one house per two and a quarter acres. Given the location of this at the intersection of Santa Barbara and Golden Gate, two six lane roads. The intersection is huge; it's not likely that anybody's going to put a single-family home on that location. So, we're in the review process now. This is a required meeting by the County. Once we submitted our applications and they've had a chance to review them, we then have an opportunity to come out to the community and hold a neighborhood meeting to tell you what we're doing, obtain some input from you. If you have any questions or comments, then those comments are recorded and they're provided on to the County staff, as well as the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners for them to have as part of the public hearing process. This is not a public hearing tonight. This is an informational meeting. There will be a Planning Commission hearing in several months, when we get through the sufficiency review of our applications, and then that's followed by a Board of County Commissioner action that would take final action to either approve or deny or approve with conditions what were proposing. Connie, if you could move that along to the next one. This is another location exhibit. It shows you that – I'm sure most of you must be familiar or neighbors to the property, but the church property is existing. We have the school, obviously, now to the South. Um, we have commercial and residential to the East. And then, of course we have the States Residential West of us, and then to the North is the undeveloped property that's been zoned for some time for office and medical office uses. Do you want to advance that, Connie? I appreciate it. This is just a highlight slide telling you that we were are in for two applications, as I mentioned, an amendment to the master plan for Golden Gate, and it a zoning change to change it from E-Estates to a commercial plan development. It's known as a project named 3001 Santa Barbara commercial. It's about 6.4 acres in size. Next slide please, Connie. Again, so to reiterate, the small-scale amendment application would allow us to have a maximum of 21,500 square feet of commercial uses on the site, as well as the C3 and limited C4 uses. Then the rezoning we carry forward those same things with a maximum 21,500 square feet of commercial land usage. And what we have on the next page is the actual sub-district language. Connie, if you don't mind moving that slide. This is the 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 700 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) PL20200000385 Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict and PL20200000386 3001 SB CPUD Rezone, August 13, 2020 NIM Page 3 of 12 formality of what would get inserted into the Golden Gate master plan that says we have to rezone this to a PUD. We're restricted to a maximum of 21,500 square feet. We have to make sure that our PUD accommodates appropriate buffer setbacks dimensional standards, which would be setbacks in building heights, et cetera. And then, there's also language that restricts this to C1 through C3 commercial uses and limited C4 uses. Next slide, Connie. This is how the permitted use section is setup in the PUD. We've identified that we're allowed to do all the C1 through C3 commercial, which is the office commercial through intermediate commercial uses, as well as limited C4. Right now, we've identified car washes as one of those C4 uses we know. We're still reviewing to make sure that there's not others that we need to have, but we'll certainly – anybody who's here tonight would like to make sure we have contact information if you signed in on the sign in sheet, or you want to provide Sharon your name, or there's other contact information at the end where you can log in and view this in real time as it goes through the review process, to see what things may change as we go through the review. Next slide, Connie. Sort of Unique to several projects in Golden Gate, we've come up with a long list of prohibited uses, because neighbors have formally said, well, there's a lot of uses in C1 through C3, or even C4, that we certainly don't want to see. So, we started creating a list of prohibited uses, and this has health services, day labor type things. We've prohibited soup kitchens and homeless shelters, hospitals and specialty hospitals for psychiatric care and drug rehabilitation, and things of that nature. Those are all prohibited. That's a list that we have that are things that we can't do on the site. Next slide, Connie. This is our conceptual master plan. We're working to add more detail to this, but at this moment, this is where we are. So, on the top of the page is Golden Gate Parkway. To the right side of the page is Santa Barbara Boulevard. We're proposing to have two access points on Golden Gate and have one access point on the far South end of our property on Santa Barbara. The access points, we're negotiating those with Collier County Transportation staff right now. We're hopeful that we can get a left directional access into the site, which would put it probably on the far Western portion of the property. Internally there will probably be a series of frontage roads and connecting roads so you can travel from Golden Gate Parkway and then onto Santa Barbara Boulevard. And we have a small water management area we're proposing and some of the native vegetation that's onsite will be 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 701 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) PL20200000385 Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict and PL20200000386 3001 SB CPUD Rezone, August 13, 2020 NIM Page 4 of 12 mitigated offsite. There's a small cluster of trees that really don't function as habitat or tree clusters so we'll be either making those trees up onsite or we'll be going offsite to mitigate for those. But internally we've provided– It's hard to see on this screen, unfortunately, but probably the most intense use would be limited to the corner. And then, we have three other potential lots that are part of that. So, four total lots we're looking at for the property. Next slide, Connie. This is probably hard to see on this screen. The clarity's not great, but this is the master plan that I was just showing you overlaid on an aerial photograph so you can get an idea of just how it relates to the current improvements and what's around us. And again, showing the access points with arrows on there, we have a 25 to 30-foot wide buffer on our western boundary. And it's varied because we've asked for a couple of deviations that – for an internal buffer in between out parcels, if we utilize that and put in narrower internal buffers, we have to increase the buffer on our western property boundary to 30 feet. So, it would be in flux somewhere between 25 and 30 feet. Connie, next slide, please. Our PUD also contains development standards. This is what I referred to with those dimensional criteria that we have. We've identified required setbacks from Golden Gate and Santa Barbara, as well as our western PUD boundary. We've established maximum building heights and minimum structure sizes as well as our total maximum square feet of 21,500 that I previously mentioned. Next slide, Connie. So, we have a few deviations that are related to signage. These are specific to gas station user that have been approved for other sites around Collier County. I'm not going to go through the details of them, but they're signage for facilities with fuel pumps, and they are to allow – really the way the county structured the code and, Rich, you've done all of them so I think if you need to answer this, feel free to jump in, but these are – the county's code is really specific and was very generic. Racetrac in this example has a very specific program for signage that they've used and would like to use here as well. So, that's what those deviations will allow us to do. Next slide, please. These were the landscape deviations, and this would allow us to have internal lesser setbacks between out parcel users while putting the larger buffer to the external side of the western side of the property, as well as putting different sized trees in. And that was something that staff had asked us to do as part of the deviation request. Next slide, please. So, the presentation, it's a very quick overview but this is some contact information, and I'll just leave that up for a 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 702 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) PL20200000385 Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict and PL20200000386 3001 SB CPUD Rezone, August 13, 2020 NIM Page 5 of 12 moment. And this tells you how you can access these documents and our application materials online through either our GradyMinor.com website or collier county's web portal that they have, which is available on their city view site. I'm not sure if any of you all go to the county government website, but through their development review, you can go on and look at our application as well as all the submittal documents that we make, all the staff comments that are made. And our next steps after that will be to – you'll see, once we get through the next probably two or three months worth of reviews with staff, we'll get to a point where they tell us we're ready to go to a planning commission hearing. So, then that's the point at which you'll see the four by eight signs you've seen at other places be posted on the site. And those would have the dates of the hearings. If you received a mail notice for this meeting, you should receive a mail notice from Collier County for those public hearings as well. And as I said, the final action would be taken by the Board of County Commissioners, but we don't have firm hearing dates established for those yet. So, with that, I'll end my presentation and try to entertain questions. And then, like I said, we have Tom Hardy from Racetrac who can answer questions, Rich, financial questions, or if you have traffic questions, we can deal with them, too. Sharon Umpenhour: You don't think we'll need to use the microphone? Wayne: Yeah. I'm not sure exactly how some – I think the other microphone – just so we can make sure everybody hears, if we wouldn't mind speaking into the microphone. If you can come forward and maybe try not to touch it. That way we can try to be as sanitary as possible. But if you wouldn't mind coming forward to ask a question, and one of the things that the county has asked us to do is to make sure that– And if you don't want to reveal your name, that's okay. But they want to try to distinguish when they read a transcript, whether it's me speaking or one of the applicant's team that's speaking versus a member of the public. So, if you feel comfortable giving your name, feel free. If you don't, just say I'm a member of the public, and here's my question or comment. So, with that, if anybody has any questions raise your hand or make your way to the microphone that Sharon placed over here on the side, and we will try to capture everything. No? Somebody's got to have a question or comment. There we go. Okay. Eric Hope: Hello, I'm Eric. I'm a neighbor here. My only question is with the boundary line of their proposed plan, but it's right up on somebody's driveway. Is there any plan to do some kind of sound 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 703 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) PL20200000385 Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict and PL20200000386 3001 SB CPUD Rezone, August 13, 2020 NIM Page 6 of 12 wall or some kind of major block? Because that would be really annoying to me if I live right next door to that. Wayne: Well, the county's buffering standards – I think it's a Type B buffer that's required, and it requires at least a test requirement. I don't know that we've gotten far enough along in our planning to know that we've got a sound wall or anything like that planned, but certainly the applicant's listening in and hearing your comments as well, so. [Crosstalk] Wayne: Thank you. Yes, sir. Bill Desaro: Hi, I'm Bill Desaro. On slide 11, the traffic pattern – Wayne: Can you come back to that, Connie? Slide 11, please. Bill: On the top of the screen there, it shows a turn in from the westbound lane. That's a significant concern. If anybody that lives close by this corner knows that the traffic going eastbound at any given time, especially during rush hour, stacks up back to 58th Street. Um, so to try to make – and plus, when that turn lane going north um, is backed up, and that's a red light for the turn lane, green light going east on Golden Gate Parkway. People coming westbound would be trying to cross over a red light, stopped traffic, and then a green-lighted other three lanes of traffic doing high rate of speed – just let's face it. On Golden Gate Parkway, people do 60 miles an hour easily all day long. So, if you're trying to go from the westbound lane, cut across 60 miles an hour traffic after trying to cut through people that are sitting there parked, waiting for the light to change, I really hope the county is going to reconsider that because that's – people are going to die there. I think that's just definite. And then, after a couple of accidents happen, then they'll probably change it. So, hopefully they're proactive in taking measures to not allow some – we have enough people that come down that way and turn around at 58th and go back on Golden Gate Parkway. Most of us would be more okay with that even though it's not optimum solution either, but that turn in on the top part of the page there is, in my opinion, just not an option. Wayne: Yeah, and we're through our first review with the county, and I don't think that they have blessed any part of the application yet. So, I appreciate your comments, and we'll certainly … the county 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 704 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) PL20200000385 Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict and PL20200000386 3001 SB CPUD Rezone, August 13, 2020 NIM Page 7 of 12 staff is listening and I'm sure they're taking notes on that as well. Bill: I have another question of you. Wayne: Sure. Bill: I know that you're at the beginning of this whole process, do you have a um, potential site plan or layout of how this is going to potentially lay out on the property? Wayne: We are working on that. Racetrac Petroleum is looking at that. Obviously, we think that the gas station component, if they move ahead with that, would be on the corner parcel. And orientation, obviously of the pump and canopy islands would face either Santa Barbara or Golden Gate, one of the two. I mean, we've all driven past a number of these – Bill: Of course. I mean, I go to a Racetrac every day at work. I have no issue with them as a corporation. They're great. The manager that I speak to every morning to get coffee is awesome. I know that they do a nice job with their buildings and maintain everything well. So, that's not the concern I don't think for any of us. I don't think the concern really is that we don't want it. I don't know. It's not necessarily a bad thing to bring it to the area. It could be a nice little anchor as opposed to the church that's just sitting there kind of deteriorating. But, I think the major concern is obviously traffic. We have enough traffic as it is. Not sure that this is going to bring really any more or less, to be honest. But um, for people that live um, near the boundaries on the um, west side, also on the north side, even on the south side, any of the boundaries, um, we would be concerned with how the building lays out simply because of um, the time of day. You know, if the car wash opens at 7:00 a.m. you got those big blowers. It's configured in a manner where let's just say towards the west, you have the exit for the car wash. I'm not saying this is how it's going to be, but potentially if it is, you have a person coming out of a car wash at 7:00 a.m. big blowers going, vacuum area, vacuums are running. That kind of thing. Also, if it's configured a certain way, Racetrac has a dumpster. I'm sure that the carting companies come early in the morning, 5:30 in the morning, whatever, pick up the dumpsters. Our concern and I speak for a couple people that I know and speak to, that would be a concern. If and when the whole process takes place, that they would consider our input in terms of how they can configure things that would be less intrusive into our daily life. 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 705 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) PL20200000385 Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict and PL20200000386 3001 SB CPUD Rezone, August 13, 2020 NIM Page 8 of 12 Wayne: Absolutely. I know that they will, and I know staff will demand that as well. I appreciate your comments so much. Sharon: What was your name, sir? Bill: Bill Desario. Wayne: Thank you. Anything else? Bill: I think it's good. Wayne: Okay. Bill: For the moment. Wayne: You can come back to it. Bill: Thank you. Appreciate it. Wayne: Yes, ma'am. Robin McDonald: – I actually have two concerns. One is that Golden Gate Parkway was supposed to be a green exit, no gas stations, no fast food, so on and so forth. My concern is that this is going to crack the door to other things along the exit, McDonalds, Burger Kings, so on and so forth. The other concern is your right next to a school and you're serving alcohol. I don't think that's a very good idea. Wayne: Okay. Well, thank you for that. Sharon: What was your name, ma'am? Robin: Robin McDonald. Wayne: The County – this is Wayne Arnold, just so the record can catch that, the county does have standards for consumption on premises. If it's served in a setting such as a restaurant or something, they aren't allowed within 500 feet of schools and churches and things like that. We couldn't have a standalone bar or things like that, but consumption on the premises is permitted. We added language to the code that says that we're basically entitled to have that because there are, obviously, enough convenience gas stations that all sell beer, wine, et cetera. That, obviously, is a component if the gas station component moves ahead. Just to be clear on that. The other, with regard to your green comment, the county does severely limit 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 706 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) PL20200000385 Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict and PL20200000386 3001 SB CPUD Rezone, August 13, 2020 NIM Page 9 of 12 the commercial along this corridor. They didn't want commercial right at the interchange. Rich worked for David Lawrence for instance. He's been here for almost 30 years at their location. To expand, it took a comprehensive plan amendment and a lot of time and effort to get them to expand the bingo hall to work on as well, and that was a similar item. So, it's not an easy process to do that. This is two miles from the interstate. I'm not quite sure where they are replacing non-residential use today. Wayne: Yes ma'am. Richard Yovanovich: Just too, Wayne to add. I don't know if this was your comment or not. Richard Yovanovich for the record make sure the Plan Commission knows who it is. There's a prohibition in the comprehensive plan at the interstate to prohibit any commercial uses at the interstate. Was that what your comment was referring to because that's where it's absolutely prohibited? Robin: Originally when they were talking about – because I've been here since before the exchange, is they said that from the Livingston, which wasn't even there anymore. At that time, it was Airport Road and Santa Barbara, that there would be nothing commercial, that churches were allowed. Um, David Lawrence was already existing so that was the church on the corner – Richard: No, I know. You're absolutely right. The comprehensive plan. Robin: And the bridge club. All of that was already there. Richard: They've been here forever, yeah. Female Speaker: So, why don't we have a gas station here? Richard: Well, what – Robin: It was said that it would stay green from the Santa Barbara to Airport Road. No convenience, no gas station, no fast food. Richard: If I can, I'll briefly say and then Wayne can take over. A woman from the audience asked, why are we asking for gas station? Why are we asking to change this corner? Female Speaker: Right, especially with the car wash. Richard: I understand the car wash comment. I think the reality is, and I've been here 30 years and you guys probably here at least that long, if 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 707 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) PL20200000385 Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict and PL20200000386 3001 SB CPUD Rezone, August 13, 2020 NIM Page 10 of 12 not longer. I used to live in the apartments right by the county park on this street, so I'm very familiar with this area. I don't think anybody envisioned how big this intersection became from two six-lane roads. I mean, it's got to be, if it's not the largest intersection in Collier County, it's got to be pretty close to one of the biggest intersections. This property, I think we all have to acknowledge, is not an appropriate residential piece of property. Just like we went through the same change, Wayne and I worked on, I’m directionally challenged, the northwest quadrant right across the street. I think people acknowledged that was not an appropriate residential piece of property either. We are going through this process because there are some exceptions to that general rule that you didn't want to have a long corridor of non- residential uses on the Golden Gate Parkway. That's why we're going through this process because I think that with the change of circumstances surrounding this intersection. I don't think it's an appropriate residential piece of property. That's why we don't think Robin: There's actually been several new residences built along the Parkway. Richard: Oh, I don't doubt that. Robin: It just seems to be the right person who would want it, and there's already an existing church. So, that's an expense. That's probably why somebody hasn't approached that for the property. Richard: Well, it's – I can tell you, I think that. I don't know who that buyer is that wants to live on a six-lane by six-lane intersection. I agree further up and down Golden Gate Parkway, you can properly buffer yourself and make sure you have easier access to the property now. I don't think this is that site that really lends itself to residential. Wayne: Thank you. Ma'am, want to go ahead? Leighanne Dietrich: Yeah. My name Leighanne Dietrich. I'm concerned about the – back to Bill Desaro's question, that entrance there and exit, ingress, egress I'm afraid that when you do that, you'll block off turning left into 58th Street Southwest, which is where I live. And I don't want it to end up like they did 70th Street, where you have to go – I don't even know how far you have to go. Eric Hope: You have to go to a back road to get to another road – Leighanne: Yeah. That would really tick me off. 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 708 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) PL20200000385 Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict and PL20200000386 3001 SB CPUD Rezone, August 13, 2020 NIM Page 11 of 12 Sharon: What's your name, ma'am? Leighanne: Leighanne Dietrich. Wayne: Thank you. Anybody else have questions or comments? No? If you don't then we'll adjourn the meeting. Sharon: Do you want to ask our Zoom participants? Wayne: Do you have any, do you have any comments or questions you want to make or Nancy or Anita? Do you have any comments you need to make? Nancy Gundlach: Thank you for your presentation. Thank you to all the attendees who came out tonight. Wayne: Thank you. It sounds like we just had a rain shower. Sharon: Could you hear us okay? Wayne: Thank you for coming out. Nancy: Yes. Wayne: Good. Thank you, Nancy. Thank you with that, are we adjourned? Thank you all. Female Speaker: I have one question; does the car wash have to go with it? Can't we just not have a car wash, if we have to have a gas station? Wayne: Well, we think the carwash kind of goes hand in hand with a gas station. Female Speaker: But this is Golden Gate – Richard: I understand, that’s why we have these meetings. Let us go back and talk to our client. Female Speaker: Please, no car wash, it's going to be bad enough as it is for those of us who use Golden Gate Parkway continuously. We have no choice. I tried to get in a neighbor here. Wayne: And as Rich mentioned, that's why we have these meetings to share with you and hear your concerns so we'll be talking to our client. 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 709 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) PL20200000385 Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict and PL20200000386 3001 SB CPUD Rezone, August 13, 2020 NIM Page 12 of 12 Female Speaker: I'm totally against the whole thing the gas station, the carwash is even worse. Bill: Okay. The other car wash aspect to it would be that there's a brand new one right at Berkshire. There's also brand new renovated one down the street. The level wash, the biggest, knocked down that building, fully completed, renovated that. That's a brand new carwash. Its just a little bit east, maybe a mile or so east. And then, you have the other one that's a little bit south. Wayne: We're still recording this by the way, just to make sure we're– if you don't mind coming to the microphone, just to make sure it's there, appreciate it. Bill: The car wash issue. I'll just reiterate what I said, so that everybody can hear. It would be something to take into consideration for the project developer and the owner. Being that we have a brand-new carwash, maybe a mile or so, right at Berkshire Plaza next to Publix. There's also a brand new one that they fully renovated about a mile East into Golden Gate City, a little bit, about a brand new Lava wash there. So, you would have three car washes within probably a two square mile area. All brand new competing for business. I'm all for competition and driving prices of car washes down, that would be fine by me. But, I'm not sure as a business venture for somebody that would be a smart idea. Unless you come in with the king of car washes and just blow everybody else out of the water. And then, the other issue after that, down the road would be what happens if they put the other two car washes out of business? It seems you know like we have enough car washes, that wouldn't be ultimately my decision. It would be a concern, certainly a noise concern from residents locally. That's why I was concerned about the configuration of the buildings on the property, in which way they face the residences and all that. Wayne: Okay. Thank you. Appreciate your comments on that. Anything else? If not, adjourned. Thank you all very much. Sharon: Okay. We're saying goodbye now. [End of Audio] Duration: 28 minutes 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 710 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) Petitions:PL20200000385 Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict and;PL20200000386 3001 SB CPUD Rezone August 13, 2020 Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 711 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) •RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc. –Applicant •Tom Hardy, Director of Engineering –RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc. •Cleo Chang, Engineering Project Analyst –RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc. •Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq., Land Use Attorney –Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. •D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, Professional Planner –Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. •Yury Bykau, E.I, Traffic Engineer –TR Transportation Consultants, Inc. •Bruce Layman, Ecologist –Peninsula Engineering •Russ Weyer, President –Real Estate Econometrics, Inc. 2 Project Team 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 712 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 3 Area Location Map SUBJECT PROPERTY GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY SANTA BARBARA BLVD.9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 713 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 4 Location Map 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 714 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) Existing Future Land Use:Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element,Estates Designation,Mixed Use District,Residential Estates Subdistrict Proposed Future Land Use:Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element,Estates Designation,Commercial District,Santa Barbara Blvd/Golden Gate Pkwy Commercial Subdistrict Current Zoning:E,Estates Proposed Zoning:3001 SB Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) Project Acreage:6.4+/-acres 5 Project Information 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 715 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) •Small-Scale amendment to the Future Land Use Element to create a new subdistrict in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan,Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element to allow up to 21,500 square feet of general commercial uses in the subdistrict •Rezone the 6.4+/-acre parcel from the E,Estates Zoning District to the 3001 SB Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD)Zoning District to construct a maximum of 21,500 square feet of commercial land uses. 6 Proposed Request 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 716 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 7 Proposed Subdistrict Language 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 717 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 8 Proposed Uses A.Principal Uses: 1.All permitted and Conditional Uses permitted in C-1 through C-3 Zoning Districts and including the following C-4 General Commercial use: a.Car Washes (7542) 2.Eating places (5812)with alcohol consumption on premises (COP). 3.Any other principal use,which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses,as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals (“BZA”)or the Hearing Examiner. 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 718 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9 Prohibited Uses Prohibited Uses, as identified with a number from the Standard Industrial Classification Manual (1987): 1.Any use that would be subject to regulation under Ordinance No. 91-83 and any amendment or successor ordinances thereto regulating sexually oriented businesses. 2.7363 –Help Supply Services, only: Labor pools; Manpower pools 3.7389 –Business Services, Not Elsewhere Classified, only: automobile recovery services; automobile repossession service; bondspersons; gas systems, contract conversion from manufactured to natural gas; metal slitting and shearing on a contract or fee basis; repossession service; solvent recovery service on a contract or fee basis. 4.7993 –Coin-Operated Amusement Devices, only: Gambling Establishments primarily operating coin- operated machines; Gambling machines, coin-operated; Slot machines. 5.Homeless shelter 6.Soup kitchens 7.8063 –Psychiatric Hospitals 8.8069 –Specialty Hospitals, Except Psychiatric, only: alcoholism rehabilitation hospitals; drug addiction rehabilitation hospitals; rehabilitation hospitals drug addiction and alcoholism; tuberculosis and other respiratory illness hospitals. 9.8322 –Individual and Family Social Services, only: alcoholism counseling, nonresidential; crisis center; crisis intervention centers; hotlines; offender rehabilitation agencies; offender self-help agencies; outreach programs; parole offices; probation offices; public welfare centers; referral services for personal and social problems; refugee services; self-help organizations for alcoholic and gamblers; settlement houses. 10.8399 –Social Services, Not Elsewhere Classified, only Social service information exchanges: e.g., alcoholism, drug addiction. 11.9223 –Correctional Institutions. 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 719 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 10 Proposed Master Plan Note #2: If a facility with fuel pumps is proposed, landscape buffers for the facility with fuel pumps will be consistent with LDC 5.05.05 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 720 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 11 Proposed Master Plan Overlay Note #2: If a facility with fuel pumps is proposed, landscape buffers for the facility with fuel pumps will be consistent with LDC 5.05.05 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 721 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 12 Proposed Development Standards 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 722 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) Deviation 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.05.05.C.4.b.,“Signage for Facilities with Fuel Pumps- Canopy Sign Area”,which limits the maximum sign area for the canopy to one twelve (12) square foot corporate logo to instead allow one fifty (50)square foot corporate logo on the north canopy front façade facing Golden Gate Parkway and two thirty (30)square foot corporate logo signs on the side facades facing east to Santa Barbara Boulevard and west facing the adjacent commercial parcel,if convenience store with fuel pumps is developed on the easternmost tract within the PUD. Deviation 2 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.05.05.C.4.b.,“Signage for Facilities with Fuel Pumps- Canopy Sign Location”,which only allows canopy signs on the canopy face that is adjacent to a right-of-way to instead allow a canopy sign on the west side of the fuel canopy not adjacent to a right-of-way in addition to the permitted canopy signs,if a convenience store with fuel pumps is developed on the easternmost tract within the PUD. Deviation 3 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.05.05.B.1.,“Signage for Facilities with Fuel Pumps-Site Design Requirements”,which establishes the minimum side and rear setbacks for all structures as 40 feet to instead allow for the side and rear yard setbacks internal to the PUD boundary to be reduced to 25 feet.This deviation is applicable only to internal parcel boundaries and is not applicable to side and rear yard setbacks measured to the PUD boundary.13 Proposed Deviations (Signage)9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 723 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) Deviation 4 seeks relief from LDC 4.06.02,Table 2.4,footnote 3,Buffer Requirements,which allows for the required buffer between commercial outparcels to be shared with a total width of 15 feet (7.5 feet on each parcel)to instead allow for shared buffers between commercial outparcels to have a minimum required width of ten feet (five feet on each parcel)provided that the total width of the landscape buffer provided between the proposed development and the west CPUD boundary line is increased to 30 feet. Deviation 5 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.05.D.2.,“Plant Material Standards”,which requires all required new individual trees,shall be species having an average mature spread or crown of greater than 20 feet in the Collier County area and having trunk(s)which can be maintained in a clean condition over five feet of clear wood.Trees adjacent to walkways,bike paths and rights-of-way shall be maintained in a clean condition over eight feet of clear wood.Trees having an average mature spread or crown less than 20 feet may be substituted by grouping the same so as to create the equivalent of 20-foot crown spread.For code-required trees,the trees at the time of installation shall be a minimum of 25 gallon,ten feet in height,have a 1¾- inch caliper (at 12 inches above the ground)and a four-foot spread to instead allow the trees planted within the reduced buffers between outparcels to have less than a 20 foot spread and without the need to provide them in groupings.The balance of trees required in the outparcel buffers will be provided for within the PUD perimeter buffers.14 Proposed Deviations (Landscape)9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 724 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 15 Conclusion Documents and information can be found online: •Gradyminor.com/Planning •Collier County GMD Public Portal: cvportal.colliergov.net/cityviewweb Next Steps •Hearing sign(s) posted on property advertising Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) and Board of County Commissioner (BCC) hearing dates. 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 725 Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 726Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 727Attachment: Attachment C-Application 3-25-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 728 Attachment: Affidavit and SignPosting 4-28-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.gPacket Pg. 729Attachment: Affidavit and SignPosting 4-28-21 (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 730 Attachment: Hybrid Hearing Waiver (16095 : PL20200000386, 3001 SB CPUD) 06/17/2021 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.3 Item Summary: *** NOTE: This item has been continued from the May 26, 2021 CCPC Meeting, to June 3, 2021 CCPC Meeting, it was further continued to June 17, 2021 CCPC Meeting *** PL20200001481 - An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which includes the comprehensive land regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, to allow Oyster and Shellfish Processing, Distribution and On-Site Sales of Oysters and Shellfish and Ancillary Convenience Retail, on waterfront property which may include Ecotours and the Storage of Two Vessels, and to establish Design Standards for Waterfront Dependent Uses that are approved by Conditional Use in the Goodland Zoning Overlay (GZO) District, by providing for: Section One, Recitals; Section Two, Findings of Fact; Section Three, adoption of amendments to the Land Development Code, more specifically amending the following: Chapter Two – Zoning Districts and Uses, including Section 2.03.07 Overlay Zoning Districts; Chapter Four – Site Design and Development Standards, including Section 4.02.22 Design Standards for GZO District; Section Four, Conflict and Severability; Section Five, inclusion in the Collier County Land Development Code; and Section Six, effective date. [Coordinator: Richard Henderlong, MPA, Principal Planner] Meeting Date: 06/17/2021 Prepared by: Title: Planner, Principal – Growth Management Development Review Name: Richard Henderlong 06/07/2021 3:08 PM Submitted by: Title: Planner, Principal – Zoning Name: Anita Jenkins 06/07/2021 3:08 PM Approved By: Review: Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Richard Henderlong Review Item Skipped 06/07/2021 2:53 PM Planning Commission Diane Lynch Review item Completed 06/07/2021 4:39 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Additional Reviewer Completed 06/07/2021 4:50 PM Zoning Ray Bellows Additional Reviewer Completed 06/07/2021 5:23 PM Zoning Anita Jenkins Zoning Director Review Completed 06/07/2021 5:28 PM Growth Management Department James C French GMD Deputy Dept Head Completed 06/08/2021 4:18 PM Planning Commission Edwin Fryer Meeting Pending 06/17/2021 9:00 AM 9.A.3 Packet Pg. 731 1 Memorandum To: Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) From: Richard Henderlong, Principal Planner Date: May 26, 2021 Re: June 3, 2021 Three Daytime LDC Amendments and Two Nighttime, Privately Initiated LDC Amendments There are three proposed daytime LDC amendments, to be heard at 2:30 PM, that include the following: 1. PL20190002818: LDC sections 1.08.02-Definitions and 9.03.03-Types of Nonconformities o Clarifies the calculation of density for single-family, two-family, or duplex dwelling units on legal non-conforming lots of record in the Residential Multi- Family-6 District (RMF-6). o Clarifies the definition for non-conforming lots of record and lot of record. 2. PL20200002505: LDC section 10.03.05-Required Methods of Providing Public Notice o Increases the written public notification distance to property owners for land use petitions within the Rural and Urban Golden Gate Estates of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP). o Implements the GGAMP and requires an amendment to the Administrative Code regarding public notice procedures for land use petitions. 3. PL20200002512: LDC sections 3.08.00-Environmental Date Requirements and 5.05.15 Conversions of Golf Courses o Clarifies when soil and/or groundwater sampling is required in the development review process for the conversion of golf courses to non-golf course uses. The LDC amendments above may be voted on separately or in one motion if there are no textual changes. 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 732 Attachment: CCPC Memo 5-26-21 (16154 : PL20200001481 Privately Initiated LDC Amendment- Good Oysters Landing+ GZO) 2 There are two nighttime, privately initiated LDC amendments to be heard at 5:05 PM. Both are recommended for approval by DSAC and Staff. Each require a separate vote by the CCPC. They were continued from May 26th to June 3, 2021 and are summarized as follows: 1. PL2020002306 VR Zoning on Chokoloskee Island: LDC section 2.03.02 F – Village Residential (VR) Zoning District o Allows, by conditional use, the new use: Waterfront sporting and recreational camp for water-related or dependent uses for fishing, boating and recreation on property of no less than 0.5 acres, which may include up to two (2) docks, one (1) boat slip, four (4) recreational vehicles or park model trailers for temporary overnight stay and one (1) sports and recreational camp cabin. The term sports and recreational camp cabin is intended to include cooking facilities, sanitary facilities, and an accessory caretaker’s residence for an on-site worker/employee. o This new conditional use shall be available to all properties Zoned VR on Chokoloskee Island, Goodland Island, Immokalee and Copeland areas. 2. PL20200001481 Good Oysters Landing +: LDC sections 2.03.07 J - Goodland Overlay Zoning District and 4.02.22 – Design Standards for GZO District, more specifically Table 14. Design and Dimensional Standards in the GZO District. o Allows, by conditional use, the new use: Oyster and shellfish processing, distribution and on-site sales of oysters and shellfish and ancillary convenience retail, on waterfront property which may include ecotours, and the storage of two vessels. It excludes the washing and rinsing of oysters and shellfish onsite. o The use shall require compliance with all state licensing and certification, including “The Comprehensive Shellfish Code” in Chapter 5L-1, F.A.C. as amended. o Establishes design standards for water-dependent and/or water-related uses on waterfront property that are approved by conditional use in the GZO District. o For mixed use water-dependent and/or water- related uses and per LDC section 4.02.05 it may allow for a single family live-work unit on waterfront property. 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 733 Attachment: CCPC Memo 5-26-21 (16154 : PL20200001481 Privately Initiated LDC Amendment- Good Oysters Landing+ GZO) LDCA-PL20200001481-Good Oysters Landing + Page 1 of 14 CCPC 05-13-21 STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION; GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: 05/26/2021 SUBJECT: LDCA-PL20200001481 Good Oysters Landing + ______________________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT/AGENT: Applicant: Agent: Jeffery McDonald Patrick G. White, Esq. 1790 Wave Crest Court 4748 West Blvd. Marco Island, FL 34145 Naples, FL 34103 REQUESTED ACTION: To have the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application for a Land Development Code (LDC) amendment to Section 2.03.07 J Goodland Zoning Overlay (GZO) District and more specifically LDC section 2.03.07 J.2 Conditional Uses and LDC section 4.02.22 Table-14 Design and Dimensional Standards in the GZO District. This amendment proposes a new conditional use in the Goodland Zoning Overlay District to allow for oyster and shellfish processing and distribution facilities and prohibit the onsite washing and rinsing of oysters. Also, it shall allow a design standard for the water-dependent and/or water-related use (oyster processing and distribution facility) to be no greater than 750 square feet in gross floor area. Further, it will allow a single family live/work unit over and/or abutting the oyster processing and distribution facility (including ecotours to the oyster farm site) with ancillary convenience commercial. (See Attachment A-proposed LDC amendment) GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: LDC amendments are not typically associated with a specific parcel or geographic location. However, the proposed LDC amendment is associated with a previously submitted companion Conditional Use rezoning request (PL20190002211). The request is to process and sell (retail and wholesale) oysters associated with an oyster farm located in the waters of Ten Thousand Islands, 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 734 Attachment: PL20200001481 Private LDCA-Staff Report 5-13-21 CCPC (16154 : PL20200001481 Privately Initiated LDC Amendment- Good LDCA-PL20200001481-Good Oysters Landing + Page 2 of 14 CCPC 05-13-21 Florida and to conduct ecotours of an oyster farm. (See Attachment B-Aerial, Site Location and Current Zoning Map). PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: In LDC section 2.03.07 J.2, the applicant has proposed the LDC amendment add a new conditional use for water-dependent and/or water-related uses in the Goodland Overlay Zoning (GZO) District for Goodland Island. The “water-dependent and/or water-related uses” are comprised of “oyster and shellfish processing, distribution and on-site sales of oysters and shellfish and related convenience retail, on property no less than 0.25 acres, which may include ecotours (maximum of 12 passengers) and the storage of 2 vessels, but excludes the washing and rinsing of oysters and shellfish onsite.” The use shall comply with the State of Florida licensing and certification requirements in accordance with “The Comprehensive Shellfish Code in Chapter 5L-1, F.A.C. as amended.” Further, the proposed LDC amendment shall add a new design standard in the GZO District for “water-dependent uses in the VR District that are approved by a conditional use.” This design standard shall limit each use to a maximum of 750 square feet of gross floor area that is a relatively small building footprint as is the current appearance of Goodland. See Attachment A-LDC Sections 2.03.07 J. and 4.02.22. The applicant has been issued a lease (CC-1851) to harvest oysters in the Ten Thousand Islands and staff verified the lease with the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs. The subject property for the oyster processing and distribution facility is zoned Village Residential (VR), approximately 11,978 square feet in area or 0.2749 acres and greater than 0.25 acres. Pictures of the actual lease area are shown in Attachment B. The applicant intends to live year- round, on site, to operate the oyster processing and distribution facility. The applicant asserts the LDC amendment, when adopted, would “only authorize development through the approval of conditional uses that would be compatible with, and complimentary to, the current permitted, conditional, and accessory uses for Goodland Island.” GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: The Future Land Use Element designates Goodland Island as Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict and an Urban Mixed-Use District (UMUD) and is intended to accommodate a variety of residential and non-residential land uses. FLUE Policy 7.5 states the following: “The County shall encourage mixed-use development within the same buildings by allowing residential dwelling units over and/or abutting commercial development. This Policy shall be implemented through provisions in specific Subdistricts in this Growth Management Plan”. This policy would be met if the privately initialed LDC amendment and subsequent conditional use approval is granted. The proposed LDC amendment has been reviewed by Comprehensive Planning Staff and may be deemed consistent with the GMP. 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 735 Attachment: PL20200001481 Private LDCA-Staff Report 5-13-21 CCPC (16154 : PL20200001481 Privately Initiated LDC Amendment- Good LDCA-PL20200001481-Good Oysters Landing + Page 3 of 14 CCPC 05-13-21 STAFF ANALYSIS: Shellfish harvesting/farming, processing, distribution, and handling is a highly regulated industry by the State of Florida and U.S. governmental agencies. “The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS), Division of Aquaculture certifies all aquaculturists, issues and regulates all aquaculture leases and certifies all shellfish processors in the state”, (FDACS-P-02154 Technical Bulletin #05-Revsied January 2021). The Division of Aquaculture classifies shellfish harvesting areas either as, Approved, Conditionally Approved, Prohibited, or Unclassified. The later two classification do not permit the harvesting of shellfish while an approved harvesting area is normally open to shellfish harvesting and a conditionally approved harvesting area is periodically closed to shellfish harvesting when pollution events, such as rainfall or river stage occur. All shellfish aquaculture leases are in Approved and Conditionally Shellfish Harvesting areas. The Ten Thousand Island area is a Shellfish Harvesting area comprised of several locations to farm clams and oysters. The applicant has been issued a lease harvest area CC-1851. (See Attachment C – Individual Parcel Lease in Collier County- Occupied and Vacant Areas). Shellfish must be delivered to a certified processor the same day as harvest and commercial harvesters using onboard cooling systems must deliver the oysters to a certified shellfish processing facility and oyster, must be placed under mechanical refrigeration by the shellfish processor by no later than 3:00 p.m. of the harvest day. (F.A.C. Rule 5L-1.008 (9) (a) Shellfish Handling-Onboard Cooling Option). For rapid cooling option, during the months of May through September, shellfish processors must place all harvested oysters under mechanical refrigeration by no later than 11:00 a.m., F.A.C. Rule 5L 1.008 (10) (b). This is an important highpoint to locating an oyster processing and distribution facility within a reasonable travel distance from the harvest site to the facility on Goodland Island. The applicant has stated all cleaning and rinsing of oysters shall occur offsite of the processing and distribution facility. The state has adopted two water treatment standards; depuration water treatment and wet storage treatment, per F.A.C. Rule 5L-1.017, to determine if standards are being met and if controls are effective. The depuration treatment of shellfish is a controlled process designed to reduce bacterial contamination to an acceptable level as defined in subsection F.A.C. Rule 5L-1.004 (5). The wet storage of shellfish is done to enhance product quality of shellfish that have been harvested from Approved or Conditionally Approved shellfish harvest areas in the open status. The applicant has agreed to prohibit the washing and rinsing of oysters on site, which could contribute to industrial wastewater management generated from the farming operations. Goodland Island has a long history of shellfish farming, dating back to the early 1900s. Shellfish farming, “According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 2018 Census of Aquaculture, shellfish farming was the second highest valued aquaculture product in Florida in 2018” (FDACS- P-02154 Technical Bulletin #05-Revised January 2012). The operation of any shellfish processing facility requires a shellfish processing certification to be issued by FDACS and a certified building inspection. A commercial harvester must comply with the Comprehensive Shellfish Control Code, Chapters 5L-1 and 5L-3 Aquaculture Best Management Practices (BMP) F.A.C. The certification of the shellfish processing facility shall occur after the site for Conditional Use has been approved. Staff requested the GIS staff to prepare a list, taken from the Collier County Real Property Appraiser’s Office, of all zoned Village Residential (VR) developed and vacant parcels, including 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 736 Attachment: PL20200001481 Private LDCA-Staff Report 5-13-21 CCPC (16154 : PL20200001481 Privately Initiated LDC Amendment- Good LDCA-PL20200001481-Good Oysters Landing + Page 4 of 14 CCPC 05-13-21 their lot area for Goodland Island. The list yields, 196 parcels are currently zoned VR, of which 68 belong to Drop Anchor Mobile Home Coop, 3 are 0.89, 1.68, 5.02 acres in size and 125 vary from 0.08 acres up to 0.37 acres in size. The value of this analysis confirmed there are adequate vacant land and available parcels, in size of 0.25 acres or greater, which shall qualify for water- dependent and/or water-related uses through the conditional use approval process. Since the applicant’s initial LDC amendment submittal, staff had several meetings and numerous email correspondences with the applicant’s representative to reach the current proposed LDC text amendment. The modified text serves to meet the applicant’s project description and shall provide a conditional use procedural review process with the opportunity for other water-dependent and/ or water-related uses on Goodland Island, to be evaluated for compatibility and the effect on neighboring properties. Because of the integration of water dependent uses with an oyster/shellfish processing facility and a live/work residential unit, the development shall reflect the unique residential and commercial characteristics of the Goodland community. The LDC amendment offers an alternative for water dependent land use that provide for the economic development of a unique industry. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Development Services Advisory Committee-Land Development Review (DSAC-LDR) Subcommittee reviewed the privately initiated LDCA petition on March 31, 2021 and unanimously recommended approval by eliminating the reference to “Waterfront Dependent Uses” and cite only “Oyster and shellfish processing….” which is a water dependent use on waterfront property. After DSAC-LDR recommendation, staff presented a minor textual to recognize there are other water dependent and water-related uses that can be allowed on water front property other than a mixed-use water dependent use and that the terms “water-dependent and/or water-related” are terms that are used throughout the LDC, and specifically in LDC sections 2.03.05 B. and 2.03.6 C.2. The full DSAC reviewed the revised text on May 05, 2021 and unanimously recommended approval of the amendment. The revised text has been incorporated with this Staff Report and highlighted in yellow. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: This Staff Report was reviewed by the County Attorney’s Office on May 07, 2021. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward Petition PL- 20200001481 to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of approval. Attachments: A. LDC Sections 2.03.07 J. and 4.02.22 B. Aerial, Site Location and Current Zoning Map C. Individual Lease Parcels in Collier County-Occupied and Vacant Areas 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 737 Attachment: PL20200001481 Private LDCA-Staff Report 5-13-21 CCPC (16154 : PL20200001481 Privately Initiated LDC Amendment- Good ATTACHMENT A LDCA-PL20200001481-Good Oysters Landing + Page 6 of 14 CCPC 05-13-21 LDC Section 2.03.07-Overlay Zoning Districts J. Goodland Zoning Overlay (GZO). To create design guidelines and development standards that will assure the orderly and appropriate development in the unincorporated area generally known as Goodland. The Goodland Zoning Overlay district (GZO) is intended to provide regulation and direction under which the growth and development of Goodland can occur with assurance that the tropical fishing village and small town environment of Goodland is protected and preserved, and that development and/or redevelopment reflect the unique residential and commercial characteristics of the community. The boundaries of the Goodland Zoning Overlay district are delineated on Map 1 below. GZO - Map 1 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 738 Attachment: PL20200001481 Private LDCA-Staff Report 5-13-21 CCPC (16154 : PL20200001481 Privately Initiated LDC Amendment- Good ATTACHMENT A LDCA-PL20200001481-Good Oysters Landing + Page 7 of 14 CCPC 05-13-21 1. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in this subdistrict: a. Clam nursery, subject to the following restrictions: i. A "clam nursery" is defined as the growing of clams on a "raceway" or "flow-through saltwater system" on the shore of a lot until the clam reaches a size of approximately one-half inch. ii. For the purposes of this section, a "raceway" or "flow-through salt water system" is defined as a piece of plywood or similar material fashioned as a table-like flow through system designed to facilitate the growth of clams. iii. At no time may a nursery owner operate a raceway or raceways that exceed a total of 800 square feet of surface area. iv. The nursery must meet the requirements of a "minimal impact aquaculture facility" as defined by the Department of Agriculture. v. The nursery must not be operated on a vacant lot, unless both of the following requirements are met: a) The vacant lot is owned by the same individual who owns a lot with a residence or habitable structure immediately adjacent to the vacant lot; and b) The vacant lot must not be leased to another individual for purposes of operating a clam farm within the RSF-4 and VR zoning districts. vi. At no time will a nursery owner be allowed to feed the clams, as the clams will be sustained from nutrients occurring naturally in the water. vii. Only the property owner or individual in control of the property will be allowed to operate a raceway on the shore off his property within the VR and RSF-4 zoning districts. In other words, a landowner must not lease his property to another individual to use for purposes of operating a clam nursery. viii. Any pump or filtration system used in conjunction with the nursery must meet all applicable County noise ordinances and must not be more obtrusive than the average system used for a non- commercial pool or shrimp tank. 2. Conditional Uses. The following use is allowed in the GZO as a conditional use: a. Water-Dependent and/or Water-Related Uses: a i. Oyster and shellfish processing, distribution and on-site sales of oysters and shellfish and ancillary convenience retail, on waterfront property no less than 0.25 acre, which may include ecotours (maximum twelve passengers) and storage of two vessels, but excludes the washing and rinsing of oysters and shellfish onsite. This use must comply with all requirements for Florida-state licensing and certification, including “The Comprehensive Shellfish Code” in Chapter 5L-1, F.A.C., as amended. RESERVED 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 739 Attachment: PL20200001481 Private LDCA-Staff Report 5-13-21 CCPC (16154 : PL20200001481 Privately Initiated LDC Amendment- Good ATTACHMENT A LDCA-PL20200001481-Good Oysters Landing + Page 8 of 14 CCPC 05-13-21 3. Parking/storage of major recreational equipment, personal vehicles, and certain commercial vehicles. a. Within the VR and RSF-4 zoning districts, except for specifically designated travel trailer subdivisions, boats, trailers, recreational vehicles and other recreational equipment may be stored in any yard subject to the following conditions. i. Recreational equipment must not be used for living, sleeping, or housekeeping purposes when parked or stored. ii. Recreational vehicles or equipment must not exceed 35 feet in length. iii. Recreational vehicles or equipment must not be parked, stored or encroach in any county right-of-way easement. iv. Recreational vehicles or equipment that exceed 35 feet in length will be subject to the provisions of section 5.03.06 of this Code. b. Personal vehicles may be parked in drainage swales in the VR and RSF- 4 zoning districts subject to the following conditions. i. No vehicle shall block or impede traffic. c. Commercial vehicles 35 feet in length or less will be allowed to park at the owner's home and in the drainage swale subject to the following conditions: i. No vehicle shall block or impede traffic; ii. Drainage must not be blocked or impeded in any way as a result of the parking in the swales; iii. Parking will only be permitted in driveways and not in yard areas; and iv. No more than two commercial vehicles may be parked at one residence/site, unless one or more of the vehicles is engaged in a construction or service operation on the residence/site where it is parked. The vehicle engaged in this service must be removed as soon as the construction or service is completed. For purposes of this subsection only, a commercial vehicle is defined as a van, pickup truck, or passenger car used for commercial purposes and licensed by the Department of Transportation. A vehicle is not considered a commercial vehicle merely by the display of a business name or other insignia. No other commercial vehicle, such as dump trucks, cement trucks, forklifts or other equipment used in the construction industry will be allowed to park at a residence or site overnight unless specifically approved by the County Manager or his designee. 4. Storage sheds. Parcels located off of Bayshore Way are allowed to retain any sheds that were constructed prior to October 17, 2003. Storage sheds for fishing and boat equipment on the boat dock parcels off of Bayshore. # # # # # # # # # # # # # 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 740 Attachment: PL20200001481 Private LDCA-Staff Report 5-13-21 CCPC (16154 : PL20200001481 Privately Initiated LDC Amendment- Good ATTACHMENT A LDCA-PL20200001481-Good Oysters Landing + Page 9 of 14 CCPC 05-13-21 LDC Section 4.02.22 - Design Standards for GZO District A. These regulations are intended to supplement the existing land development regulations found in this LDC. In the event of a conflict between other provisions of this LDC and these regulations, these regulations contained in this overlay shall control. B. Dimensional Standards. Table 14. Design and Dimensional Standards in the GZO District. Design Standard Maximum building height Same as the VR District, but not more than 2 levels of habitable space for residential purposes Minimum lot requirements Single family dwelling or mobile home Minimum lot area Minimum lot width Same as the VR District, except as follows: 4,275 square feet 45 feet Minimum lot requirements Minimum lot area Minimum lot width Same as the RSF-4 District, except as follows: 5,000 square feet 50 feet Minimum setback requirements Side yard Same as the RSF-4 District, except as follows: 5 feet Water-dependent and/or water- related uses in the GZO that are approved by a conditional use in the GZO Each use shall not exceed 750 square feet gross floor area. For mixed use water-dependent and/or water-related uses, LDC section 4.02.05 may be applied to a single family live-work unit on waterfront property. C. Specific design standards. 1. Within the VR and RSF-4 zoning districts, except for specifically designated travel trailer subdivisions, boats, trailers, recreational vehicles and other recreational equipment may be stored in any yard subject to the following conditions. a. No recreational equipment shall be used for living, sleeping, or housekeeping purposes when parked or stored. b. No recreational vehicle or equipment shall exceed 35 feet in length. c. No recreational vehicle or equipment shall be parked, stored nor encroach in any county right-of-way or easement. d. Recreational vehicles or equipment that exceed 35 feet in length shall be subject to the provisions of the County Code regarding parking of commercial or recreational vehicles. e. Personal vehicles may be parked in drainage swales in the VR and RSF-4 zoning districts subject to the following conditions: No vehicle shall block or impede traffic. 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 741 Attachment: PL20200001481 Private LDCA-Staff Report 5-13-21 CCPC (16154 : PL20200001481 Privately Initiated LDC Amendment- Good ATTACHMENT A LDCA-PL20200001481-Good Oysters Landing + Page 10 of 14 CCPC 05-13-21 2. Within the VR and RSF-4 zoning districts, fishing equipment, such as crab traps, anchors and other similar items, may be displayed or stored in any yard subject to the following conditions: a. The storage of fishing related equipment is permitted only in association with a fishing-related business. b. Storage of toxic materials is prohibited. c. The storage or display area shall be located a minimum of 5 feet from any property line or County right-of-way. d. Fishing related items may be used for decorative purposes. # # # # # # # # # # # # # 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 742 Attachment: PL20200001481 Private LDCA-Staff Report 5-13-21 CCPC (16154 : PL20200001481 Privately Initiated LDC Amendment- Good ATTACHMENT B LDCA-PL20200001481-Good Oysters Landing + Page 11 of 14 CCPC 05-13-21 Aerial and Site Location Subject Site 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 743 Attachment: PL20200001481 Private LDCA-Staff Report 5-13-21 CCPC (16154 : PL20200001481 Privately Initiated LDC Amendment- Good ATTACHMENT B LDCA-PL20200001481-Good Oysters Landing + Page 12 of 14 CCPC 05-13-21 Current Zoning Map Subject Site 9.A.3.bPacket Pg. 744Attachment: PL20200001481 Private LDCA-Staff Report 5-13-21 CCPC (16154 : PL20200001481 Privately ATTACHMENT C LDCA-PL20200001481-Good Oysters Landing + Page 13 of 14 CCPC 05-13-21 Individual Lease Parcels in Collier County-Occupied (Green) and Vacant (Yellow) Areas 9.A.3.bPacket Pg. 745Attachment: PL20200001481 Private LDCA-Staff Report 5-13-21 CCPC (16154 : PL20200001481 Privately ATTACHMENT C LDCA-PL20200001481-Good Oysters Landing + Page 14 of 14 CCPC 05-13-21 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 746 Attachment: PL20200001481 Private LDCA-Staff Report 5-13-21 CCPC (16154 : PL20200001481 Privately Initiated LDC Amendment- Good Page 1 of 13 NARRATIVE SUMMARY for GOODLAND ZONING OVERLAY Text Amendment PL 20200001481 (LDCA) I. PURPOSE & INTENT This Narrative Summary supports and applies to the above-referenced Land Development Code Amendment (“LDCA”) application. The purpose and intent of this LDCA is to add a new use as a conditional use in LDC section 2.03.7 J that would be applicable only to the Goodland Overlay Zoning District (“GZO”). LDC sections 4.02.02 & 4.02.22 are also being modified to allow for the alternative design and dimensional standards for the new proposed conditional use that may be approved for the GZO District and VR District as amended in LDC section 2.03.07 J. Thus, the texts proposed would allow for approval of subsequent Conditional Use (“CU”) applications in suitably-sized GZO locations. The most suitable of these would typically be located on navigable inland waters proximate to a State of Florida-licensed and regulated oyster/shellfish farm. Although the State of Florida has long supported and promoted the economic benefits of aquaculture, see, Chapter 597, Fla. Stat., the timing of this LDCA application follows through on the State’s enhanced support and relatively newer state laws authorizing the lease of state submerged lands for shellfish farming, see, Sec. 597.010, Shellfish regulation; leases, which was only passed into law in 2016. (See, Laws of LFlorida, Chapter 2016-200, effective 7/1/16). Thus, the timing of this LDCA application follows closely after the State’s approval of oyster/shellfish leases in the Goodland Area, see, Attachment A, “SHELLFISH HARVESTING AREA CLASSIFICATION MAP #66,” depicting approved harvest areas in the Ten Thousand Islands. The importance of shellfish farming in particular in suspended cages or pens over leased submerged bottom lands, and aquaculture in general, is set forth in the 2020 Florida Aquaculture Overview.* Accordingly, now that there are current programs for leasing submerged lands and harvesting shellfish that’s an economic priority of the state in waters nearby Goodland, the time has come to provide land-use regulations for the area that support and will implement those efforts on suitably located sites that can accommodate them. As demonstrated below, the LDCA application is consistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan’s (“GMP’s”) pertinent provisions. This primary water- dependent and water-related use for an oyster/shellfish processing facility may be supported by tightly constrained subordinate uses that may be sought as part of a CU approval. The Narrative also provides justification for the LDCA text in terms of the allowable uses it could develop in relationship to the unique residential and commercial characteristics of the Goodland community. The LDCA text sets forth limited, specific uses and establishes impact proportionate parcel-size limitations appropriate throughout the GZO. Any required conditional use approved under this GZO LDCA text would allow for reasonable development or redevelopment similar to other long-standing aquacultural uses in the Goodland community, enhancing the local marine-based 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 747 Attachment: Submittal 2 - Appplicant Narrative Statement (16154 : PL20200001481 Privately Initiated LDC Amendment- Good Oysters Landing+ Page 2 of 13 economy. These aspects, detailed further below, make clear that the new proportionately-sized conditional use would be compatible with the current permitted, conditional, and accessory uses for Goodland Island. * see, https://www.fdacs.gov/content/download/91723/file/FDACS-P-02145- 2020FLAquacultureIndustryOverview.pdf note Page 5, Shellfish, and Page 8, Table 4, showing extreme growth for Cage/Pens. II. HISTORY The Goodland area has a history of human occupation dating back to the era of the Calusa Indians. Prolific fisher-gatherers, their shell middens were built from the clams, oysters, and conch they harvested, ate, and discarded. Those shells formed the base for historic Goodland Point, which was used briefly in more modern times for farming. In the late 1940’s the area was already mostly acquired by the Collier family with substantial holdings in the area by the Pettit family as well. In the early 1950’s the still sole connecting road was built and the pre-historic middens were levelled and spread out to create the now developable upland areas. The land area we now recognize was platted in the 1950-timeframe into much of the current blocks and lots of the Goodland Heights Subdivision. Continuing the Goodland area’s long human history of harvesting shellfish, approval of the proposed LDCA text would enhance the State’s efforts to support aquaculture by allowing for approval of CU’s that would add locally farmed oysters/shellfish to the County’s economic “table!” III. COMPLIANCE WITH CURRENT LAND USE & ZONING REGULATIONS A. PROJECT GMP/LAND USE CONSISTENCY- The relevant GMP provisions (specifically including those noted as warranting responsive comment by staff) and the pertinent text therefrom are stated below. Text with bold italics is considered to be most relevant and applicable to the LDCA text proposed. The regulatory text is immediately followed by Petitioner’s analysis of those provisions to the extent they are applicable. 1. Future Land Use Element (“FLUE”): FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION SECTION The following section describes the land use designations shown on the Future Land Use Map. These designations generally indicate the types of land uses for which zoning may be requested. However, these land use designations do not guarantee that a zoning request will be approved. Requests may be denied by the Board of County Commissioners based on criteria in the Land Development Code or on special studies completed for the County. I. URBAN DESIGNATION Urban designated areas on the Future Land Use Map include two general portions of Collier County: areas with the greatest residential densities, and areas in close proximity, which have or are projected to receive future 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 748 Attachment: Submittal 2 - Appplicant Narrative Statement (16154 : PL20200001481 Privately Initiated LDC Amendment- Good Oysters Landing+ Page 3 of 13 urban support facilities and services. It is intended that Urban designated areas accommodate the majority of population growth and that new intensive land uses be located within them. Accordingly, the Urban area will accommodate residential uses and a variety of non-residential uses. The Urban designated area, which includes Immokalee, Copeland, Plantation Island, Chokoloskee, Port of the Islands, and Goodland, in addition to the greater Naples area, represents less than 10% of Collier County’s land area. A. Urban Mixed Use District: This District, which represents approximately 116,000 acres, is intended to accommodate a variety of residential and non-residential land uses, including mixed-use developments such as Planned Unit Developments. Water-dependent and water-related land uses are permitted within the coastal region of this District. Mixed-use sites of water-dependent and water-related uses and other recreational uses may include water-related parks, marinas (public or private), yacht clubs, and related accessory and recreational uses, such as boat storage, launching facilities, fueling facilities, and restaurants. Any development that includes a water-dependent and/or water-related land use shall be encouraged to use the Planned Unit Development technique and other innovative approaches so as to conserve environmentally sensitive areas and to assure compatibility with surrounding land uses. Note: Collier County’s Land Development Code allows for the construction of private boathouses and docks as an accessory use to pe rmitted uses in the following zoning districts: Rural Agricultural (A), Residential Single Family (RSF 1-6), Residential Multiple Family (RMF-6, 12, 16), Residential Tourist (RT), Village Residential (VR), and Mobile Home (MH). Marinas are a permitted use in the Commercial (C-3) and Commercial (C-4) Districts. Marinas are permitted as a conditional use in the RT District. Marinas and boat ramps are permitted as a conditional use in the Community Facility (CF) District. Boat yards and marinas are permitted as a conditional use in the VR District.* The Collier County Manatee Protection Plan (NR-SP-93-01) May 1995 restricts the location of marinas and may limit the number of wet slips, the construction of dry storage facilities, and boat ramps, based upon the Plan’s marina siting criteria. Priorities for shoreline land use shall be given to water dependent principal uses over water-related land uses. In addition to the criteria of compatibility with surrounding land uses and consistency with the siting policy of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (Objective 10.1 and subsequent policies), the following land use criteria shall be used for prioritizing the siting of water-dependent and water-related uses: a. Presently developed sites; b. Sites where water-dependent or water-related uses have been previously established; [Property Appraiser’s and other aerial images 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 749 Attachment: Submittal 2 - Appplicant Narrative Statement (16154 : PL20200001481 Privately Initiated LDC Amendment- Good Oysters Landing+ Page 4 of 13 support anecdotal historical use for water-dependent fishing/trapping aquaculture.] c. Sites where shoreline improvements are in place; [1982 seawall] d. Sites where damage to viable, naturally functioning wetlands, or other environmentally sensitive features, could be minimized. *N.B. As discussed in greater detail below, the proposed LDCA text does not and cannot authorize a “marina” use, however, as stated above, that in the base VR District marinas and boat yards may be approved via the conditional use process, as is now being put forth here for approval! 3. Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict The purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide transitional densities between the Conservation designated area (primarily located to the south of the Subdistrict) and the remainder of the Urban designated area (primarily located to the north of the Subdistrict). The Subdistrict comprises those Urban areas south of US 41, generally east of the City of Naples, and generally west of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Neutral Lands, but excludes Section 13, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, and comprises approximately 11,354 acres and 10% of the Urban Mixed Use District. The entire Subdistrict is located seaward of the Coastal High Hazard Area Boundary. In order to facilitate hurricane evacuation and to protect the adjacent environmentally sensitive Conservation designated area, residential densities within the Subdistrict shall not exceed a maximum of four (4) dwelling units per acre, except as allowed in the Density Rating System to exceed four (4) units per acre through provision of Affordable Housing and Transfers of Development Rights, and except as allowed by certain FLUE Policies under Objective 5, and except as provided in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay. New rezones to permit mobile home development within this Subdistrict are prohibited. Rezones are recommended to be in the form of a Planned Unit Development. Policy specific analyses: The foregoing can be more simply expressed as applying FLUE Policy 1.5, where the URBAN Future Land Use Designation includes Future Land Use Districts and Subdistricts for: A. URBAN - MIXED USE DISTRICT … 3. Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict, which, as noted above, requires analysis of the following GMP provisions: FLUE OBJECTIVE 5: (VII)(XLIV) Implement land use policies that promote sound planning, protect environmentally sensitive lands and habitat for listed species while protecting private property rights, ensure compatibility of land uses and further the implementation of the Future Land Use Element. FLUE Policy 5.3: All rezonings must be consistent with this Growth Management Plan. For properties that are zoned inconsistent with the Future Land Use Designation Description Section but have nonetheless been determined to be consistent with the 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 750 Attachment: Submittal 2 - Appplicant Narrative Statement (16154 : PL20200001481 Privately Initiated LDC Amendment- Good Oysters Landing+ Page 5 of 13 Future Land Use Element, as provided for in Policies 5.9 through 5.13, the following provisions apply: . . . 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. Although the current VR base-zoning district is not being rezoned, to the extent the LDCA’s GZO text may be considered to be in the more intensive nature of a use-authorizing “rezone,” the proposed text does not allow for, and would not authorize, public facility impacts disproportionately greater than what would be allowable if lands were to be developed as allowed by the base zoning and current GZO. FLUE Policy 5. 4: All applications and petitions for proposed development shall be consistent with this Growth Management Plan, as determined by the Board of County Commissioners. Although this consistency determination is ultimately the role of the Comprehensive Planning staff, based upon the analyses and conclusions set forth in this Narrative and application, Petitioner concludes, and believes that staff would likely concur, that this LDCA proposal is, and should be deemed, consistent with the FLUE. FLUE Policy 5.6: New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004, as amended). A compatibility determination is ultimately the role of the Zoning and Land Development Review staff that would largely be based on any subsequent, required conditional use application. This LDCA text limits such an application’s proposed development in scope of its primary and subordinate uses and sets maximum limits of intensity of those uses. Given the GZO’s current permitted-by- right use for clam farming aquaculture, the proposed text is similar in terms of uses. Thus, in conjunction with other prevalent aquaculture uses, development allowed under the LDCA text would be both compatible with any contiguous, adjacent, or nearby development in the GZO on base-zoned residential and more intensive commercial properties. As such, any conditional use development utilizing the LDCA texts would complement the other similar uses found throughout the Goodland community. This would ensure there would be no conflict from anticipated impacts with any existing or allowable uses. Accordingly, Petitioner believes the limited scope of uses and constrained intensity of those uses set forth in the LDCA text should be deemed compatible with the FLUE. OBJECTIVE 7: Promote smart growth policies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and adhere to the existing development character of the Collier County, where applicable, and as follows: 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 751 Attachment: Submittal 2 - Appplicant Narrative Statement (16154 : PL20200001481 Privately Initiated LDC Amendment- Good Oysters Landing+ Page 6 of 13 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. (XLIV) = Plan Amendment by Ordinance No. 2017 -22 on June 13, 2017 Future Land Use Element as of Ordinance No. 2019 -39 adopted November 12, 2019 24. The GZO does not abut collector or arterial roads. 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. (XXX) Due to the GZO’s limited geographic area and tightly constrained physical opportunities for further development or redevelopment in the Goodland area, the LDCA text’s potential approvals would not likely ever add to vehicle congestion on any nearby collector or arterial roads and would not increase the need for traffic signals. 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. Given the location and area of many of the platted lots in the GZO it is neither likely appropriate, nor often going to be possible, to provide any vehicular interconnection between developments, but those circumstances would be individually evaluated with each conditional use application. 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. (XV)(XLIV) Given the relatively small scale of sites this LDCA text allows to come forward as conditional use applications, this policy may almost always be inapposite, regardless, those circumstances and opportunities would be evaluated with each individual conditional use application. Policy 7.5: The County shall encourage mixed-use development within the same buildings by allowing residential dwelling units over and/or abutting commercial development. This Policy shall be implemented through provisions in specific Subdistricts in this Growth Management Plan. The LDCA text acknowledges that, consistent with such uses being permitted by right in the base-VR District, a conditional use application may include one single family residential unit being developed along with the “commercial” uses. Policy 7.6: The County shall explore the creation of an urban “greenway” network along existing major canal banks and powerline easements. (XXX) 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 752 Attachment: Submittal 2 - Appplicant Narrative Statement (16154 : PL20200001481 Privately Initiated LDC Amendment- Good Oysters Landing+ Page 7 of 13 Although much of the GZO is adjacent to navigable waterwaya, given the developable small scale of potential conditional uses, almost all would not be suitable for the creation of, or inclusion in, a “greenway;” regardless, those circumstances will be individually evaluated with each conditional use application. 2. Conservation and Coastal Management Element ( CCME): Coastal Zone Management background: Subsection 163.3177(6)(g), Florida Statutes, also requires Collier County to have what is the in the CCME as far as “policies that shall guide the local government's decisions and program implementation with respect to the following objectives:” 1. Maintenance, restoration, and enhancement of the overall quality of the coastal zone environment, including, but not limited to, its amenities and aesthetic values. 2. Continued existence of viable populations of all species of wildlife and marine life. 3. The orderly and balanced utilization and preservation, consistent with sound conservation principles, of all living and nonliving coastal zone resources. 4. Avoidance of irreversible and irretrievable loss of coastal zone resources. 5. Ecological planning principles and assumptions to be used in the determination of suitability and extent of permitted development. 6. Proposed management and regulatory techniques. 7. Limitation of public expenditures that subsidize development in high-hazard coastal areas. 8. Protection of human life against the effects of natural disasters. 9. The orderly development, maintenance, and use of ports identified in Sec. 403.021(9) to facilitate deepwater commercial navigation and other related activities. 10. Preservation, including sensitive adaptive use of historic and archaeological resources. (X) = Plan Amendment by Ordinance No. 2015-07 on January 27, 2015 Conservation and Coastal Management Element as of Ordinance No. 2017 -20 adopted June 13, 2017 (VI) The statute further relates the functions of the Conservation and Coastal Elements so that, in effect, local governments in designated coastal areas, such as Collier County, are required to prepare a Conservation and Coastal Management Element, which fulfills the requirements for both Elements. Accordingly, Collier County’s Conservation and Coastal Management Element is divided into thirteen (13) separate goal areas. These may be summarized as follows: 1. Protection of natural resources; 2. Protection of surface and estuarine water resources; 3. Protection of groundwater resources; 4. Protection of freshwater resources; 5. Protection of mineral and soil resources; 6. Protection of native vegetation and wildlife habitat; 7. Protection of fisheries and wildlife; 8. Maintenance of existing air quality; 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 753 Attachment: Submittal 2 - Appplicant Narrative Statement (16154 : PL20200001481 Privately Initiated LDC Amendment- Good Oysters Landing+ Page 8 of 13 9. Management of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes; 10. Protection of coastal resources; 11. Protection of historic resources; 12. Hurricane evacuation and sheltering; and 13. Avoiding duplication of regulations. These goal areas are achievable by the following, as they apply to any development permissible under the proposed LDCA text: CCME Policy 10.1.1: The County shall prioritize water-dependent and water- related uses as follows: a. Public recreational facilities over private recreational facilities; b. Public boat ramps; c. Marinas 1. Commercial (public) marinas over private marinas; 2. Dry storage over wet storage; d. Commercial fishing facilities; e. Other non-polluting water-dependent industries or utilities; f. Marine supply/repair facilities; g. Residential development. The LDCA text’s allowable uses are both water-dependent (e.g., off-site oyster/shellfish farming) and water-related (e.g., retail bait & tackle, water taxi, vessel fueling, eco tours) uses demonstrating how a developable site as a further required approval of a conditional use application with a required Conceptual Site Plan would provide the preferred recreational facility made available to the public; for example, through the limited scale of the ecological tour and paddle-craft rental uses that are allowable. Other allowable subordinate uses, such as retail bait and tackle use, as well as the sale of basic sundry products through the convenience store use , would allow a marine supply facility to operate in support of the area’s commercial fishing, all of which are allowed in support of the primary oyster/shellfish processing facility use that in turn supports nearby off-site oyster/shellfish farming (growth, harvesting, and initial cleaning). Those further the on-site oyster/shellfish processing, as well as the allowable oyster/shellfish retail sale & wholesale uses. And lastly, the allowable GZO & VR residential use, although perhaps the lowest priority of uses, can provide for a resident operating an approved site’s facilities. CCME Policy 10.1.2: Identify recreational and commercial working waterfronts [SEE INTER-CONNECTED STATE STATUTE SET FORTH BELOW (most pertinent text is in bold-italics for emphasis)] and then investigate strategies for possible implementation, as feasible, to ensure protection and preservation of those waterfronts. Florida Statutes Sec. 342.07 Recreational and commercial working waterfronts; legislative findings; definitions.— (1) The Legislature recognizes that there is an important state interest in facilitating boating and other recreational access to the state’s navigable waters. This 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 754 Attachment: Submittal 2 - Appplicant Narrative Statement (16154 : PL20200001481 Privately Initiated LDC Amendment- Good Oysters Landing+ Page 9 of 13 access is vital to tourists and recreational users and the marine industry in the state, to maintaining or enhancing the $57 billion economic impact of tourism and the $14 billion economic impact of boating in the state annually, and to ensuring continued access to all residents and visitors to the navigable waters of the state. The Legislature recognizes that there is an important state interest in maintaining viable water-dependent support facilities, such as public lodging establishments and boat hauling and repairing and commercial fishing facilities, and in maintaining the availability of public access to the navigable waters of the state. The Legislature further recognizes that the waterways of the state are important for engaging in commerce and the transportation of goods and people upon such waterways and that such commerce and transportation is not feasible unless there is access to and from the navigable waters of the state through recreational and commercial working waterfronts. (2) As used in this section, the term “recreational and commercial working waterfront” means a parcel or parcels of real property which provide access for water- dependent commercial activities, including hotels and motels as defined in Sec. 509.242(1), or provide access for the public to the navigable waters of the state. Recreational and commercial working waterfronts require direct access to or a location on, over, or adjacent to a navigable body of water. The term includes water- dependent facilities that are open to the public and offer public access by vessels to the waters of the state or that are support facilities for recreational, commercial, research, or governmental vessels. These facilities include public lodging establishments, docks, wharfs, lifts, wet and dry marinas, boat ramps, boat hauling and repair facilities, commercial fishing facilities, boat construction facilities, and other support structures over the water. As used in this section, the term “vessel” has the same meaning as in Sec. 327.02. Seaports are excluded from the definition. History.—s. 13, ch. 2005-157; s. 8, ch. 2006-172; s. 6, ch. 2006-220; s. 8, ch. 2014-70. The LDCA text allows for a conditional use that, if approved, would develop a water-dependent and water-related set of uses through the minimal set of supporting facilities expressly anticipated by the statute; and thus, the LDCA text’s allowable uses would qualify as both a recreational and commercial waterfront where direct and safe access for both recreational and commercial vessels to navigable waters of the state is provided for by any developable conditional use. CCME Objective 10. 2: The County shall continue to insure [sic] that access to beaches, shores and waterways remain [ sic] available to the public . . . . The LDCA text furthers this policy by allowing for development of a conditional use affording limited, environmentally appropriate public access to the local waterways for both commercial and recreational uses. CCME Policy 12. 2. 7: The County shall continue to assess all undeveloped property within the coastal high hazard area and make recommendations on appropriate land use. The LDCA text would authorize development of an oyster/shellfish processing facility and subordinate uses that would enhance the community's access to water-dependent aquaculture and water-related recreational uses via a 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 755 Attachment: Submittal 2 - Appplicant Narrative Statement (16154 : PL20200001481 Privately Initiated LDC Amendment- Good Oysters Landing+ Page 10 of 13 site’s launching and landing facility; and although within the CCHA boundary, only allows for an appropriately limited set of uses and constrained intensities of such uses on properties that can be smaller in area, but are evaluated on an individual basis to assure each conditional use application would not allow disproportionate impacts to the property area to be approved . 3. RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT ( ROSE): Objective 13 : Continue to ensure that all public developed recreational facilities, open space and beaches and public water bodies are accessible to the general public. The proposed LDCA text would allow development providing greater access to a public water body, Goodland Bay and its surrounding waterways, for the Goodland community and its visitors. 4. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: Approval of the LDCA text does not require an Environment Impact Statement (“EIS”) to be submitted per se; regardless, those circumstances will be individually evaluated with each conditional use application. As noted above, there is an approved, designated Shellfish Harvesting Area most proximate to the GZO (see, Attachment A). A conditional use for an oyster/shellfish processing facility would provide an environmental benefit to its surrounding aquatic habitat from the filter-feeding function, for example, of oysters (~50 gallons per day, per oyster) located in the nearby harvesting area. 5. HISTORIC/ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION: LDC section 2.03.07. E. 2. e, Requests for Land Use Character, states that property under consideration for development within an area of historical or archaeological probability must have a historical and /or archaeological survey and assessment prepared by a certified archaeologist to be provided to the Historic Archaeological Preservation Board (“HAPB”) so that its recommendations can be presented to the Planning Commission and to the BCC at their public hearings. Although the GZO (and thereby the lands subject to the LDCA text) is often determined to be an area of historical or archaeological probability, those circumstances would be individually evaluated with each conditional use application, and thus, should not preclude approval of the LDCA text. B. “COMPATIBILITY” ANALYSIS of PROPOSED GZO LDCA TEXT: 1. HISTORY of Village Residential (VR) Zoning & Goodland Zoning Overlay (GZO) a. VR Zoning on Goodland was established as early as BCC Ord. No. 91-102, effective 11/8/1991, in LDC Sec. 2.2.9.1. The Ordinance also included a map graphic indicating the subject is in a FIRM Zone AE11. In Ord. No. 04-41, recodifying the LDC, the VR was relocated and renumbered 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 756 Attachment: Submittal 2 - Appplicant Narrative Statement (16154 : PL20200001481 Privately Initiated LDC Amendment- Good Oysters Landing+ Page 11 of 13 to LDC Sec. 2.03.02. F., where only minor text amendments, not relevant here, have since been made. b. The GZO was added as an overlay of the Goodland area via BCC Ord. No. 00-92, in Section 2.2.34, which was later converted to the current Sec. 2.03.07 J., in Ord. No. 04-41. Of critical significance to this LDCA GZO application, revisions in Ord No. 06-08 converted the prior “Conditional Use” approval for a land-based “Clam Nursery” to a “Permitted Use,” which have been developable by right in the GZO for nearly fifteen years. These prior text amendments authorize a water-dependent and water-related aquacultural use that is considered by right to be compatible with the surrounding uses in the GZO. Thus, a clam nursery can be located almost anywhere in the Goodland community and not be seen as incompatible. The rationale for this is the marine-based life-style and economy that are at the very historical roots of Goodland and formed its modern foundation. The present LDCA text builds on the State’s strong support of aquaculture that also fosters a working waterfront. Petitioner believes these new uses are closely parallel in their impacts to the prior GZO use already allowed without further public input. To further assure compatibility with surrounding uses, however, the LDCA text mandates the greater detail of a Conceptual Site Plan and approval via the closer scrutiny of the conditional use process. 2. CURRENT LDC AND OTHER REGULATORY DEFINITIONS: These definitions are analyzed in conjunction with more generally accepted meanings of selected terms specific to the distinction inherent in this application as to why the LDCA text is expressly not able to be construed as authorizing the development of a “Marina.” Analysis of this point follows below. a. LDC pertinent terms: Aquaculture: The cultivation of marine or aquatic species (fresh or salt water) under either natural or artificial conditions. Dock: Any structure constructed in or over a waterway for the primary purpose of mooring a boat or other watercraft. Dock facility: Includes walkways, piers, boathouses and pilings associated with the dock. Marina: A boating facility, chiefly for recreational boating, located on navigable water frontage, and providing all or any combination of the following: boat slips or dockage, dry boat storage, small boat hauling or launching facilities, marine fuel and lubricants, marine supplies, bait and fishing equipment, restaurants, boat and boat motor sales, and rentals. Does not include dredge, barge, or other work-dockage or service, boat construction or reconstruction, or boat sales lot. b. Federal ADA Guidelines mandate compliance with its design standards for watercraft access for what are defined as “recreational boating facilities.” See, https://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and- standards/recreation-facilities/guides/boating-facilities/accessible-boating- facilities, with text from same quoted below: 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 757 Attachment: Submittal 2 - Appplicant Narrative Statement (16154 : PL20200001481 Privately Initiated LDC Amendment- Good Oysters Landing+ Page 12 of 13 “Recreational boating facilities can include fixed and floating facilities. Facilities can vary in size from one boat slip (for example, at a small campground facility) to several thousand slips, and can handle boats ranging in size from small canoes to large sailboats and powerboats. Facilities may be located in the same waterfront area or even in the same site (such as a State park with a large lake) and include marinas, launching facilities, piers, and docks that are designed for recreational use.” The stated scope of this provision supports the conclusion that if a site does not have any fixed or floating docking facilities, one or more boat slips, or launching facilities (e.g., boat ramps), then the ADA design requirements do not apply because the site does not qualify as having “recreational boating facilities.” Given the County’s use of a similarly worded definitional phrase for a “Marina” expressing that it is “chiefly” for “recreational boating,” and in light of the extremely limited nature of any proposed site’s water access, which would typically be entirely land-based facilities that are intended primarily for aquaculture, not recreation, Petitioner concludes any such conditional use would not bring it under the County’s defined terms or related reg ulations pertaining to a “Marina.” Accordingly, the term does not appear in any of the application materials for this LDCA text as it is inapposite. Furthermore, based on the exclusion of docks (fixed or floating), piers, and boat slips from an oyster/shellfish processing facility supporting State encouraged and approved aquaculture authorized by this LDCA text, and the limitations that any site allowed to be developed as a conditional use under this set of primary and subordinate uses only affords on -shore facilities for vessels of small to medium lengths [up to twenty-four (24’) feet LOA] along with limited primarily land-based launching and landing facilities for those vessels, Petitioner concludes that application of the term “Marina” and any related regulatory provisions thereto, would be an impermissible expansion of the term. Stated differently, there is no public policy rationale that supports applying the designation of “Marina” to any development allowable as a conditional use by this LDCA text and that doing so would be inconsistent with the intent of the term and its related regulatory provisions. Analyzed from the perspective of vessel impacts on navigational waters and marine life in their aquatic habitats being analogized to vehicles on ground-based road networks, the vessel “trips” allowable by such developable uses in the GZO, given the number, area/size, and location of potential sites for same, are “de minimis.” Similarly, the small number and relative size of the vessels and “trips” generated by the approval of any conditional use authorized by th is LDCA text cannot and will not rise to the level warranting the application of the term “Marina,” or any related regulatory provision. 3. LDCA Compatibility: a. based on the limited scope and constrained intensity of allowable uses being added to, and their similarity to existing uses already in, 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 758 Attachment: Submittal 2 - Appplicant Narrative Statement (16154 : PL20200001481 Privately Initiated LDC Amendment- Good Oysters Landing+ Page 13 of 13 the GZO, the anticipated development impacts will be on par with those from neighboring commercial and residential uses. These uses would be reduced further in scale on the smaller sites allowable under the LDCA text in LDC Section 4.02.02 et seq., thereby lessening impacts overall, as follows: i. traffic trip generation from an approved conditional use is likely to have an “insignificant” impact on roadway capacities with no mitigation being required other than impact fees. ii. only routine public utilities usage, based on septic/no sewer, and typical potable water use. b. site development of conditional use would not authorize or allow any new dock, pier, or boat slip facilities. c. similar water-dependent and water-related uses are already permitted by right and are otherwise allowed for in the GZO and are found throughout the Goodland community, which has a mix of both residential and commercial uses, especially for the waterfront developments. Based on the foregoing, Petitioner concludes that the LDCA text should be deemed to only allow development of conditional uses that would be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses in the GZO. IV. CONCLUSIONS Based on all of the foregoing analyses, Petitioner concludes that the LDCA text proposed is: 1. consistent with all applicable GMP & other LDC provisions, and 2. only authorizes development through the approval of conditional uses that would be compatible with, and complimentary to, the current permitted, conditional, and accessory uses for Goodland Island. 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 759 Attachment: Submittal 2 - Appplicant Narrative Statement (16154 : PL20200001481 Privately Initiated LDC Amendment- Good Oysters Landing+ 9.A.3.dPacket Pg. 760Attachment: Submittal 2 -Applicant Attachment A (16154 : PL20200001481 Privately Initiated LDC r NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Collier County Planning Commission(CCPC)at 5:05 P.M.,May 26,2021,in the Board of County Commissioners Meeting Room,Third Floor,Collier Government Center,3299 East Tamiami Trail,Naples,FL,to consider: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-41, AS AMENDED,THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,TO ALLOW OYSTER AND SHELLFISH PROCESSING,DISTRIBUTION AND ON-SITE SALES OF OYSTERS AND SHELLFISH AND ANCILLARY CONVENIENCE RETAIL, ON WATERFRONT PROPERTY, WHICH MAY INCLUDE ECOTOURS AND THE STORAGE OF TWO VESSELS AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE GOODLAND ZONING OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT,AND TO ESTABLISH DESIGN STANDARDS FOR WATERFRONT DEPENDENT USES THAT ARE APPROVED BY CONDITIONAL USE IN THE I* GOODLAND ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT, BY PROVIDING FOR: SECTION ONE, RECITALS;r SECTION TWO,FINDINGS OF FACT;SECTION THREE,ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE m LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, MORE SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FOLLOWING:CHAPTER in t TWO—ZONING DISTRICTS AND USES,INCLUDING SECTION 2.03.07.J GOODLAND ZONING m OVERLAY;AND CHAPTER FOUR—SITE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS,INCLUDING a SECTION 4.02.22 DESIGN STANDARDS FOR GZO DISTRICT;SECTION FOUR,CONFLICT AND il SEVERABILITY;SECTION FIVE, INCLUSION IN THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT o CODE;AND SECTION SIX,EFFECTIVE DATE.[PL2 02 00001 481]E tati co ow MN° to 0, C c.. ..) San Marco RD (C.R. 92) xi o CO h) Goodland DR s Project 1`' o Location All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard.Copies of the proposed ORDINANCE will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's Office, Fourth Floor, Collier County Government Center,3299 East Tamiami Trail, Suite 401, Naples, FL, one week prior to the scheduled hearing.Written comments must be filed with the Zoning Division,Zoning Services Section,prior to May 26,2021. As part of an ongoing initiative to promote social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic,the public will have the opportunity to provide public comments remotely,as well as in person,during this proceeding. Individuals who would like to participate remotely,should register any time after the agenda is posted on the County website which is 6 days before the meeting through the link provided on the front page of the County website at www.colliercounryfl.goy. Individuals who register will receive an email in advance of the public hearing detailing how they can participate remotely in this meeting.For additional information about the meeting,please call Thomas Clarke at(239)252-2526 or email to CCPCRemoteParticipation@CollierCountyFL.gov. Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Collier County Planning Commission will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding,you are entitled,at no cost to you,to the provision of certain assistance.Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Division, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101, Naples,FL 34112-5356,(239)252-8380,at least two days prior to the meeting.Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. Collier County Planning Commission Edwin Fryer,Chairman I N6GC10643673.01 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 761 Attachment: Published AD-May 7, 2021 Good Oysters Landing (5_26_21) (16154 : PL20200001481 Privately Initiated LDC Amendment- Good u ipleA PART OF THE USA TODAY NETWORK Published Daily Naples, FL 34110 COLLIER COUNTY HEX 3299 TAMIAMI TRL E 700 NAPLES,FL 34112 Affidavit of Publication STATE OF WISCONSIN COUNTY OF BROWN Before the undersigned they serve as the authority, personally appeared who on oath says that they serve as legal clerk of the Naples Daily News, a daily newspaper published at Naples,in Collier County,Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida;that the attached copy of the advertising was published in said newspaper on dates listed. Affiant further says that the said Naples Daily News is a newspaper published at Naples, in said Collier County, Florida,and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Collier County, Florida;distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida,each day and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Naples, in said Collier County, Florida ,for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. 5/7/2021 Subscribed and sworn to before on May 7th,2021: Wl um c11) Notary,State of WI,County of Brown TARA MONDLOCH Notary Public IState of Wisconsin My commission expires: August 6,2021 PUBLICATION COST:SI,040.26 AD NO:GCI0643673 CUSTOMER. NO:323883 PO#: PL2020000148I 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 762 Attachment: Published AD-May 7, 2021 Good Oysters Landing (5_26_21) (16154 : PL20200001481 Privately Initiated LDC Amendment- Good NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a puhftf' hearing will be held by the Collier County Planning Commission(CCPC)at 5:05 P.M.,May 26,2021,in the Board of County Commissioners Meeting Room,Third Floor,Collier Government Center,3299 East Tamiami Trail,Naples,FL,to consider: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,TO ALLOW OYSTER AND SHELLFISH PROCESSING,DISTRIBUTION AND ON-SITE SALES OF OYSTERS AND SHELLFISH AND ANCILLARY CONVENIENCE RETAIL, ON WATERFRONT PROPERTY, WHICH MAY INCLUDE ECOTOURS AND THE STORAGE OF TWO VESSELS AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE GOODLAND ZONING OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT,AND TO ESTABLISH DESIGN STANDARDS FOR WATERFRONT DEPENDENT USES THAT ARE APPROVED BY CONDITIONAL USE IN THE GOODLAND ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT, BY PROVIDING FOR: SECTION ONE, RECITALS; SECTION TWO, FINDINGS OF FACT;SECTION THREE,ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, MORE SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FOLLOWING:CHAPTER TWO-ZONING DISTRICTS AND USES, INCLUDING SECTION 2.03.07.J GOODLAND ZONING OVERLAY;AND CHAPTER FOUR-SITE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS,INCLUDING SECTION 4.02.22 DESIGN STANDARDS FOR GZO DISTRICT;SECTION FOUR,CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY;SECTION FIVE, INCLUSION IN THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE;AND SECTION SIX,EFFECTIVE DATE.[PL20200001481] N Copier B`vD o San Marco RD (C.R. 92) N C1 off. Goodland DR co,, iProject o Location 0 All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Copies of the proposed ORDINANCE will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's Office, Fourth Floor, Collier County Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Suite 401, Naples, FL, one week prior to the scheduled hearing.Written comments must be filed with the Zoning Division,Zoning Services Section,prior to May 26,2021. As part of an ongoing initiative to promote social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic,the public will have the opportunity to provide public comments remotely,as well as in person,during this proceeding.Individuals who would like to participate remotely,should register any time after the agenda is posted on the County website which is 6 days before the meeting through the link provided on the front page of the County website at www.colliercountyfl.gov. Individuals who register will receive an email in advance of the public hearing detailing how they can participate remotely in this meeting.For additional information about the meeting,please call Thomas Clarke at(239)252-2526 or email to CC.PCRenroteParticir alionOColliercouptyFL,gov. Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Collier County Planning Commission will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding,you are entitled,at no cost to you,to the provision of certain assistance.Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Division, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101, Naples, FL 34112-5356, (239)252-8380,at least two days prior to the meeting.Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. Collier County Planning Commission Edwin Fryer,Chairman NDGC106436110 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 763 Attachment: Published AD-May 7, 2021 Good Oysters Landing (5_26_21) (16154 : PL20200001481 Privately Initiated LDC Amendment- Good 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 764 Attachment: Affidavit of Authorization McDonald (16154 : PL20200001481 Privately Initiated LDC Amendment- Good Oysters Landing+ GZO) 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 765 Attachment: GOOD OYSTERS LANDING +_20210601_0001 Request for Continuance (16154 : PL20200001481 Privately Initiated LDC 1 HenderlongRichard From:HenderlongRichard Sent:Monday, May 17, 2021 11:09 AM To:'JLThomas1312@Hotmail.com' Cc:ThomasClarkeVEN; BellowsRay; JenkinsAnita Subject:PL20200001481 Good Oysters Landing+ and PL20200002306 VR Zoning on Chokoloskee Island Mrs. Thomas, It was a pleasure speaking with you today. I have added you name and email address to our Community Email List. You will receive an email on the upcoming CCPC meeting for May 26th later this week. It will provide a direct link to each Staff Report for these LDC amendments and another link to register remotely by zoom to participate. Respectfully, Richard P. Henderlong Principal Planner Zoning Division-Land Development Code Collier County Growth Management Department 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr., Naples, FL 34104 239-252-2464 Tell us how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at http://bit.ly/CollierZoning. Exceeding Expectations 9.A.3.h Packet Pg. 766 Attachment: Public Comments-Emails (16154 : PL20200001481 Privately Initiated LDC Amendment- Good Oysters Landing+ GZO) From: Sherri Morrison <txtomatosherri@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2021 3:53 PM To: CCPC Remote Participation <CCPCRemoteParticipation@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: hearing to amend Ordinance 04-41 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. Hello, I am a Goodland resident and very concerned about this hearing to amend Ordinance 04-41 in Goodland. I am also very much opposed to this. Goodland already sees an extreme increase in traffic during season and this will add not only traffic due to the marina this gentleman has in mind but also commercial traffic, fuel trucks, trucks for the clams, oysters, fish, etc. It’s a safety issue and a quality issue. We already have 3 commercial marinas on our island and we do not need another one. Our village is too small for this type of operation. I would like to request to attend the meeting remotely. Thank you, Sherri Morrison ___ Sherri Morrison Creative Design Owner | Creative Director txtomato@earthlink.net | 239.776.1372 https://www.facebook.com/pages/Sherri-Morrison-Creative-Design/272783777648 https://www.linkedin.com/pub/sherri-morrison/18/135/433 9.A.3.h Packet Pg. 767 Attachment: Public Comments-Emails (16154 : PL20200001481 Privately Initiated LDC Amendment- Good Oysters Landing+ GZO) 1 HenderlongRichard From:ThomasClarkeVEN Sent:Tuesday, May 25, 2021 10:13 AM To:HenderlongRichard Subject:Good Oysters & VR Zoning Chokoloskee LDCA's Rich, Got another call for a concerned resident in Goodland regarding the above. Could you give him a call? Apparently no one has received a mailed notice on these petitions. Per Andy, mailed notices are not required for LDCA’s. If they were it would be in 10.03.06.K. His name is Stephen Delisi, cell 203-253-6661. Thanks Tom Thomas Clarke Operations Coordinator - Zoning Division 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-252-2526 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 9.A.3.h Packet Pg. 768 Attachment: Public Comments-Emails (16154 : PL20200001481 Privately Initiated LDC Amendment- Good Oysters Landing+ GZO) 1 HenderlongRichard From:goodlandfl@aol.com Sent:Tuesday, June 1, 2021 4:41 PM To:HenderlongRichard Subject:Re: Private Initiated LDC amendments June 03,2021 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. Richard, thank you very much for sharing with me background information on the application for the GZOD and the docs. The President of the Goodland Civic Association is Greg Bello, 239-595-2719. Best regards, Connie Fullmer President, Goodland Preservation Coalition, Inc. (GPC) -----Original Message----- From: HenderlongRichard <Richard.Henderlong@colliercountyfl.gov> To: GoodlandFl@aol.com <GoodlandFl@aol.com> Sent: Tue, Jun 1, 2021 2:48 pm Subject: Private Initiated LDC amendments June 03,2021 Mrs. Fulmer, Here are the staff reports for the nighttime privately initiated LDC amendments. Please look them over and let me know if you have questions. Respectfully, Richard P. Henderlong Principal Planner Zoning Division-Land Development Code Collier County Growth Management Department 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr., Naples, FL 34104 239-252-2464 Tell us how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at http://bit.ly/CollierZoning. Exceeding Expectations Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 9.A.3.h Packet Pg. 769 Attachment: Public Comments-Emails (16154 : PL20200001481 Privately Initiated LDC Amendment- Good Oysters Landing+ GZO) 1 HenderlongRichard From:JIM INGLIS <jameshinglis@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, June 2, 2021 3:49 PM To:HenderlongRichard; greg bello; Jim Seegers; jim inglis Subject:Jim Seegers and Jim Inglis and Greg Bello contact info. Attachments:Greg Bello.vcf; Jim Seegers.vcf; jim inglis.vcf 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. 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. Greg is the president of the GCA, Goodland Civic Association. Jim I. is the treasurer of the Goodland Civic Association. Jim S. a member of the Goodland Civic Association. We all have homes here. We appreciate the time you spent with us this morning. We plan to send all members of your committee our thoughts and concerns in writing. We would also like to meet with each of the members individually or in small groups. We will also be speaking at the June 17th meeting. Thank you again for your time - feel free to reach out to any or all of us anytime. Jim/Jim/Greg --- 9.A.3.h Packet Pg. 770 Attachment: Public Comments-Emails (16154 : PL20200001481 Privately Initiated LDC Amendment- Good Oysters Landing+ GZO) June 3, 2021 Hello, My name is Josh Erickson. My wife Elizabeth and our 19 month old son Owen have property in Goodland located at 237 Harbor Pl N. We have a concern in regards to subject LDCA- PL20200002306 VR Zoning on Chokoloskee Island, 376 Smallwood Dr. AND PL20200001481 Good Oysters Landing+. I own a small Eco-Education company that highlights the natural beauty of the area as well as the history and importance of Goodland in the Ten Thousand Islands. I currently keep my boats on our property located at 237 Harbor Pl. N. I feel the verbiage of limiting the minimum size to .5/.25 acres excludes almost all existing VR in Goodland and is in direct contrast to the purpose and intent of the current goal of the VR zoning per LDC 2.03.2. The current VR zoning uses are located and designed to “maintain a village residential character which is generally low profile, relatively small building footprint as is the current appearance of Goodland….” My concern is that adding the minimum lot size restriction of .5 or .25 acres to the requirements for conditional use for “water-related, water-dependent use” would essentially restrict any VR lot on Goodland from obtaining a Conditional Use for similar operations as most of the lots are significantly less than .5 acres and many are less than .25 as they are small single lots. If this restriction is passed I feel it would pull the rug out from many, long standing, well established small families who are currently operating their Fishing, Eco-tour, and crabbing businesses. I feel this would basically make them “non-compliant’ in regards to the LDC and prohibit them for future approval as most of the lots are significantly smaller. I propose removing the .5 / .25 restriction all together and allow the county to review the conditional use application on a case by case basis as is the current policy (to my understanding) or allow existing business operations to be grandfathered in and continue on VR lots less than .5/.25 as is the current appearance of Goodland and to maintain such “current appearance” to meet the VR zoning intent. We are a young family facing many challenges associated with operating a small, independent business. We hope to raise our family in Collier County and understand the need to manage the growth in the area. The unique zoning classification of VR allows us an opportunity to run a minimally invasive, successful company that not only provides us a way to live, but also highlights the historical importance of Goodland and the environmental beauty of the surrounding area. Page of 1 2 9.A.3.h Packet Pg. 771 Attachment: Public Comments-Emails (16154 : PL20200001481 Privately Initiated LDC Amendment- Good Oysters Landing+ GZO) June 3, 2021 I hope the county and elected officials recognize the challenges young business owners and families face in these growing and uncertain times and consider our recommendation to change the verbiage in the currently proposed policy. Thank you for you time and consideration. Josh Erickson and Family. Page of 2 2 9.A.3.h Packet Pg. 772 Attachment: Public Comments-Emails (16154 : PL20200001481 Privately Initiated LDC Amendment- Good Oysters Landing+ GZO) LDC 4.02.05 - Specific Design Standards for Waterfront lots A. It is the intent and purpose of this section to permit the placement of principal structures, except single-family, two-family and duplex dwelling units, at the bulkhead line or shoreline where such placement at the water's edge can enhance the character of waterfront development without detriment to adjoining or nearby properties or without damage to a particular environmental situation. The provisions of this section have their greatest potential application in planning for the use of tidewater inlands or areas of the county of such size and location that the use of this provision will meet its intent and purpose. If the provisions of this section are met, such provisions govern regardless of any requirement for waterfront yards in the zoning district involved. In those cases where the coastal control line is involved, the coastal construction control line shall apply. B. Principal structures shall not be erected waterward under this section beyond the following limits for the situations outlined: 1. For waterfront lands along which a bulkhead line has been established, buildings may be erected out to, but not beyond, the bulkhead line. 2. For waterfront lands along which an offshore building limit has been established by the BCC, buildings may be erected out to, but not beyond, the building limit line. 3. For waterfront lands along which neither a bulkhead nor a building limit line has been established, buildings may be erected out to, but not beyond, the shoreline, as that shoreline exists prior to development and construction. C. Since this section applies only to the placement of structures in waterfront yards, there shall be no use permitted under this section which is not permitted or permissible in the district involved. A structure approved under this section, however, may be attached to or made an integral part of a boathouse or dock, if such boathouse or dock is permitted or permissible in the district involved. 9.A.3.i Packet Pg. 773 Attachment: LDC section 4.02.05___Specific_Design_Standards_for_Waterfront_lots (16154 : PL20200001481 Privately Initiated LDC The Historic/ Archaeological Probability Maps are the official LAST REVISION: ZONING 4/ 1 OTHER County source designating historic or archaeologic resources. e m- It1auN+ Z 0000 opo 0000m0 000040>000080;5555mm w 0 0 0000 a° r° wu, Om2mmmm8OmmIFR; ai= 0 O A ON o D m 00 ml o 0 o m 0- O o MB7F z 0 0 mmmaw- o 0 io0 0 z m mmumim m0 ID a z pD Oum VW....- z Z ZIllSLWII Allo OOi7tlW------ - -------- v m X 7 SItlS( IItlO 00 30yllIA ON' dl o EzY2' 9L a J NM° num v_. klriiiiiiiiiii . r e D, F-' 34® gag®® A to o SUNSET DRIVE ighigs NaN Q Vii C1® iirs % 015; C SUMO 11111- Io OVoA' A ! a Z A W e= Dv' YOa5 Rg0• 1 0 L n a rotto. 0 my N m 0 e© e©® J ill a0. e ZONING NOTES O ® gissavirt4„ O © „© 1 y 1 8- 2095 PU- 85- 10C 95. 176 1S3M uI iv.") 2 2- 9- 83 DRAFTING ERROR CORRECT- R 631 0 SS Figs a ors,.,, 3 AW- 89- 3 4, an I©- 5 14- 4- 93 V- 93-210.91. 2 93- 527 On vlk 6 41. 9. 991 8 U- 93- 91- 4 93. 41411111111111174 6 71. 993 CU- 93- 9 93526 v v ® as ® li PAPAYq S7 " A71. 14- 92 V- 91- 17 92-16812- 2292 NUA- 92- 3 92978 9 " DELETED" 10 " DELETED" Oil m 11 9- 13- 94 SV- 94. 3 94- 686 r 0 A o 11111 gi Ira 12 1- 595 BD94- 20 95- 1 s a N xi 13 4- 20- 95 8095- 2 95- 70 E. e ® O AmJ O in 14 2- 13- 96 NUA- 95- 7 9699 D151- 297 BD96- 24 97- 1 MI ft 3 A J 76 3- 16- 00 BD- 99- 30 00- 04 Mr ® O D Ma 17 12- 13- 00 LDC 0092 XIXI1926- 01 BD- 01- AR961 18 6- 12- 01 401- 28 8 0 C, p'/ r Bill II® ® c IRE Eill - 4 D® D I o203- 7- 02 BD- 01AR- 1842 02- 07 I!®' ® z m ao m •' tit* oH 21 7- 7- 04 BD- 04. AR- 5335 04- 09 ICZ 2 22 3- 23- 04 PUDZ- 03- AR- 3837 04- 20 O off ® m m aMI m % 24 3. 23. 054 SE-U. 0 - AR- 6 78 0- 132 BeG a 24 4- 21- 05 CBD- 05- AR- 7132 05- 132 25 5. 10- 05 V 05- AR4983 . 101 N an 1 : 1 26 5- 70- 05 VBD- 05- 6983 05- 787 ii1e NZ* 27 17- 17- 05 BD- 05- AR- 7848 05- 11rig 28 6- 3- 00 BD- 06- AR- 9563 06- 06 29 8. 70- OB CUE- 0B, AR- 72775 08- 771 31 7- 28- 09 VA- 08- AR- 13671 09- 485wil 31 7- 2899 RZ- 06- AR- 73967 09- 40 i O 32 7- 20- 18 VA- PL- 75- 1706 HEX 16- 28 0 0 x ° m ul GOODLAND DR. E. 1 33 4- 12- 16 RZ- PL- 15- 901 16- 06 1 E< m IPA EllBpcuisum344- 76- 18 BDE. PL- 7T- 2620 HEX 78- 05 m D Ea N' A, a I© O DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS MODIFICATIONS O w v ARa 7- 28- 09 RZ- 06- AR 13967 09- 40 as Ell z ooy iiiip PSS 0, II I r < m> Zmai KOO KED J 1 mz mr-moOxiN- 1 co . 0Zo 1, z " ' mzm 1. 0- 0X CD o73o0) i,, v,› z— rn ODZmz =vmmo to uzmc pp> 0 1a D D I 0 c Z D ' oCom_ vm C) A D 01, 30000O m K R' 1, 3 Tp- n 17 D cn N - i Z pr=Zrlvm z C") 0 0 K 7 C O m N Z r_ Z n s — 07J 0 0 N r Z 12 com K vK ZO0 73 00.. 0 p C• 0 D co co ( O 0 9.A.3.j Packet Pg. 774 Attachment: Goodland Zoning Map (16154 : PL20200001481 Privately Initiated LDC Amendment- Good Oysters Landing+ GZO) 06/17/2021 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.4 Item Summary: PL2021000603 GMPA - A Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners proposing amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 89-05, as amended, relating to the density bonus pool within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay and specifically amending the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay of the Future Land Use Element, to change requirements for the use of the density bonus pool; and furthermore directing transmittal of the amendments to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. [Coordinator: Josephine Medina, Principal Planner] Meeting Date: 06/17/2021 Prepared by: Title: – Zoning Name: Josephine Medina 05/28/2021 7:22 PM Submitted by: Title: Planner, Principal – Zoning Name: Anita Jenkins 05/28/2021 7:22 PM Approved By: Review: Planning Commission Diane Lynch Review item Completed 06/01/2021 12:56 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 06/02/2021 11:41 AM Zoning James Sabo Additional Reviewer Completed 06/07/2021 3:51 PM Zoning Anita Jenkins Zoning Director Review Completed 06/07/2021 3:57 PM Growth Management Department James C French Additional Reviewer Completed 06/08/2021 4:18 PM Planning Commission Edwin Fryer Meeting Pending 06/17/2021 9:00 AM 9.A.4 Packet Pg. 775 Page 1 of 8 STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT/ZONING DIVISION, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION HEARING DATE: June 17, 2021 RE: PETITION PL20210000603, BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT OVERLAY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT [TRANSMITAL HEARING] ELEMENT: FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT (FLUE) APPLICANT: Ms. Deborah Forester, Exec. Director Bayshore/Gateway Triangle CRA 3299 Tamiami Trail East Bldg. F Suite 103 Naples, Florida 34112 CONSULTANT: Laura DeJohn, AICP Johnson Engineering Inc. 2122 Johnson Street Fort Myers, FL 33901 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: This amendment is to the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay (B/GTRO), which is located along the following road corridors: Bayshore Drive, Davis Blvd. (SR 84), US 41 (Tamiami Trail) East, Airport-Pulling Road (CR 31). The B/GTRO is depicted on the zoning map on the next page and on the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay Map (Attachment B), part of the Future Land Use Map Series; and comprises approximately 1,160 acres; it is located within the East Naples Planning Community. 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 776 Attachment: Transmittal CCPC Staff Report BGTRO 6.07.2021 [Revision 1] (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Page 2 of 8 REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant proposes to amend the existing Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay within the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) within the Collier County Growth Management Plan by: 1) Amending the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay text to: a. Removes the finite reference to the 388 density bonus pool units derived from the Naples Botanical Garden Project; b. Establishes a new provision allowing flexibility to replenish the bonus density pool from: 1. A property with residential entitlement that transitions to a governmental, civic, or institutional use; 2. A property with residential entitlement that transitions to commercial use; 3. A residential project developed with fewer units than would be allowed per eligible density of the underlying zoning district. c. Revises maximum number of bonus density pool units that can be used by a mixed use development from 97 units to the greater of 25% of the total density pool units available or 10 units. d. Revises the location eligibility of residential-only project seeking to use density pool units to projects having frontage on Bayshore drive, revises the maximum number of bonus density pool units that can be used by a residential only development 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 777 Attachment: Transmittal CCPC Staff Report BGTRO 6.07.2021 [Revision 1] (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Page 3 of 8 from 97 units to the greater of 25% of the total density pool units available or 10 units and removes redevelopment requirement. e. Establishes new provision to allow for Multi-Family or Mixed use developments up to 2 acres in size to allocate up to 4 additional units from the density bonus pool, limited to an increase of no more than 2 additional dwelling units per acre; f. Limits eligibility for the utilization of density bonus pool units to those projects that provide qualifying public realm improvements and whose vehicular access is not gated; g. Adds LDC references regarding: 1. Standards for Limited Density Bonus Pool Allocation 2. Relationship of underlying zoning, prohibited uses within the overlay and continuance of nonconformities; 3. Qualifying public realm improvements; 4. Expiration timeframe for undeveloped allocated density bonus pool units to revert to density pool. The proposed amended/added text are depicted on Ordinance Exhibit A’s. PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: This petition proposes to modify the B/GTRO, and related FLUE provisions, in effort to promote more development/redevelopment within this area and to promote investment in the public realm. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: The Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) was established in 2000, a redevelopment plan was approved by the BCC for the area in 2000, and the B/GTRO was adopted into the GMPA later that same year. The purpose of the B/GTRO was (and is) to encourage the revitalization of this area and provide incentives to the private sector to do so. The Overlay currently provides for a bonus density pool with the finite number of 388 dwelling unit. These units were derived from the then residential zoning of the site of the Botanical Gardens, which may be awarded to mixed use or residential only projects as an incentive. Utilization of this bonus density pool results in a reallocation of those 388 dwelling units rather than an increase of density as typically occurs thru the rezone process under the Density Rating System in the FLUE. Two zoning overlays have been established in the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) to implement the B/GTRO (BMUD, Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District, Section 2.03.07.N; and, GTMUD, Gateway Triangle Mixed Use Overlay District, Section 2.03.07.N). The bonus units may be awarded by the BCC via approval of a Mixed Use Project (MUP) petition or Planned Unit Development (PUD) for redevelopment of a residential only project– until all 388 bonus density pool units are awarded. Currently the number of density bonus pool units available, as of the approval of Camden Landing [Ordinance 2021-12], is 122 units. On April 2019 the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area Plan was amended and adopted to update the vision and lay out a framework of goals, objectives, and strategies for implementing the vision. The update called for the amendment of the Land Development Code (LDC) and Growth Management Plan (GMP) based on recommendations from the plan update. Objective 1, under Land Use & Urban Design of the Bayshore CRA plan update, is to promote urban-style development. Strategies identified to promote urban-style development included focusing increased densities/intensities along improved roadways (with consideration of Coastal High Hazard Area restrictions), and the establishment of eligibility requirements and/or performance metrics that promote urban approaches. Objective 3, Strategy 1 promotes identification of opportunities and incentives for the promotion of public art and public realm improvements. The updated plan also mentions built density within the CRA area is far below 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 778 Attachment: Transmittal CCPC Staff Report BGTRO 6.07.2021 [Revision 1] (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Page 4 of 8 what is allowed per the eligible density of the underlying zoning district and identifies the greatest amount of vacant acreage being residential (109 acres/389 parcels) with parcel sizes that are on the smaller side and where aggregation of properties will be necessary for most moderate to large size projects to develop. 2019 BGTR Area Plan amendment provided as part of Exhibit D, Data and Analysis Memo from Johnson Engineering. The Future Land Use Element (FLUE) identifies the intent of the B/GTRO is to encourage the revitalization of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area by providing incentives that will encourage the private sector to invest in this urban area. This Overlay allows for additional neighborhood commercial uses and increased intensity and higher residential densities that will promote the assembly of property, or joint ventures between property owners, while providing interconnections between properties and neighborhoods. The intent of this Overlay is to allow for more intense development in an urban area where urban services are available. The location of this overlay within the Coastal High Hazard Area also must be taken into consideration. The proposed amendment does not change the B/GTRO Boundaries, nor does it increase the total density permitted within the Overlay boundaries, in consideration of the Coastal High Hazard Area restrictions. Using the existing Density Bonus Pool as a template this amendment proposes the replenishment of the Density Bonus Pool through the re-allocate of entitled residential units that would have remain unused within the Overlay as a way to help incentivize the redevelopment goals of the CRA as well of the intent of this Overlay. The focus of increased intensities/densities though the use of density bonus pool units remains along improved roadways, but the amendment looks to further refined by this for residential only developments to projects having frontage along Bayshore Drive, only. Promotion of the assembly of property or joint ventures between property owners remains incentivization through the density bonus pool units but is furthered through the ability to replenishment these units. Achievement of revitalization of the area, urban-style development, promotion of public realm improvements , and interconnectedness between properties and neighborhoods as intended for the Overlay and CRA plan is addressed in this amendment with the additional eligibility requirements of public realm improvements contributions and not allowing for projects to be gated, when the project uses density bonus pool units. Using existing approved projects within the B/GTRO as a template, an expiration timeframe is proposed for unused density bonus pool units allocated to a project which removes the possibility of units being tied up in projects that may not be developed or will not be developed to the maximum density permitted. The amendment looks to make it easier to incentivize smaller property owner with a maximum of 2 acres redevelop/develop by allowing the use of the bonus density pool units at a limited scale(standards and specific for this process will be further identified in proposed LDC amendments but requirements within the GMP amendment still include public realm improvement contributions and for projects not to be gated). Further clarity is also provided between the relationship of the Overlay to the underlying zoning district and proposed prohibited uses, to be further identified in the forthcoming LDC amendments, which aims to eliminate uses that are not consistent with the character of the community while still providing LDC reference to continuation of nonconformities. Assuming this GMP amendment is approved for transmittal to the statutorily required review agencies, it will return to the CCPC and BCC for Adoption hearings. It is staff’s intent to accompany the GMP amendment with the implementing LDC Amendments at time of adoption hearings. 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 779 Attachment: Transmittal CCPC Staff Report BGTRO 6.07.2021 [Revision 1] (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Page 5 of 8 Environmental Impacts: This is not a site-specific amendment, rather affects an entire Overlay. Further, the amendment does not allow development beyond that which is already allowed, rather provides for an additional means of distributing the already approved density pool of bonus units. Historical and Archeological Impacts: This is not a site-specific amendment, rather affects an entire Overlay. Further, the amendment does not allow development beyond that which is already allowed, rather provides for an additional means of distributing the already approved density pool of bonus units. Public Facilities Impacts: Because the amendment does not increase the overall allowable development density or intensity, rather allows for a reallocation of it within the Overlay, there should be no increased impacts upon level of service standards for public facilities - water, wastewater, solid waste, drainage, parks and recreation, schools, libraries, EMS, police, fire, etc. Transportation Impacts: This is not a site-specific amendment, rather affects an entire Overlay. A traffic impact analysis has not been prepared. Due to minor traffic impacts that may result from the “limited bonus density pool” process for properties less than 2 acres staff has requested for specifics regarding timing and requirement of Traffic Impact Study and access management to be specified in forthcoming density pool LDC amendments. Criteria for GMP Amendments in Florida Statutes Data and analysis requirements for comprehensive plans and plan amendments are noted in Chapter 163, F.S., specifically as listed below. Section 163.3177(1)(f), Florida Statutes: (f) All mandatory and optional elements of the comprehensive plan and plan amendments shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and an analysis by the local government that may include, but not be limited to, surveys, studies, community goals and vision, and other data available at the time of adoption of the comprehensive plan or plan amendment. To be based on data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue. 1. Surveys, studies, and data utilized in the preparation of the comprehensive plan may not be deemed a part of the comprehensive plan unless adopted as a part of it. Copies of such studies, surveys, data, and supporting documents for proposed plans and plan amendments shall be made available for public inspection, and copies of such plans shall be made available to the public upon payment of reasonable charges for reproduction. Support data or summaries are not subject to the compliance review process, but the comprehensive plan must be clearly based on appropriate data. Support data or summaries may be used to aid in the determination of compliance and consistency. 2. Data must be taken from professionally accepted sources. The application of a methodology utilized in data collection or whether a particular methodology is professionally accepted may be evaluated. However, the evaluation may not include whether one accepted methodology is better than another. Original data collection by local governments is not required. However, local governments may use original data so long as methodologies are professionally accepted. 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 780 Attachment: Transmittal CCPC Staff Report BGTRO 6.07.2021 [Revision 1] (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Page 6 of 8 3. The comprehensive plan shall be based upon permanent and seasonal population estimates and projections, which shall either be those published by the Office of Economic and Demographic Research or generated by the local government based upon a professionally acceptable methodology. The plan must be based on at least the minimum amount of land required to accommodate the medium projections as published by the Office of Economic and Demographic Research for at least a 10-year planning period unless otherwise limited under s. 380.05, including related rules of the Administration Commission. Absent physical limitations on population growth, population projections for each municipality, and the unincorporated area within a county must, at a minimum, be reflective of each area’s proportional share of the total county population and the total county population growth. Section 163.3177(6)(a)2.: 2. The future land use plan and plan amendments shall be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, as applicable, including: a. The amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth. b. The projected permanent and seasonal population of the area. c. The character of undeveloped land. d. The availability of water supplies, public facilities, and services. e. The need for redevelopment, including the renewal of blighted areas and the elimination of nonconforming uses which are inconsistent with the character of the community. f. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to or closely proximate to military installations. g. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to an airport as defined in s. 330.35 and consistent with s. 333.02. h. The discouragement of urban sprawl. i. The need for job creation, capital investment, and economic development that will strengthen and diversify the community’s economy. j. The need to modify land uses and development patterns within antiquated subdivisions. Section 163.3177(6)(a)8., Florida Statutes: (a) A future land use plan element designating proposed future general distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land for residential uses, commercial uses, industry, agriculture, recreation, conservation, education, public facilities, and other categories of the public and private uses of land. The approximate acreage and the general range of density or intensity of use shall be provided for the gross land area included in each existing land use category. The element shall establish the long-term end toward which land use programs and activities are ultimately directed. 8. Future land use map amendments shall be based upon the following analyses: a. An analysis of the availability of facilities and services. b. An analysis of the suitability of the plan amendment for its proposed use considering the character of the undeveloped land, soils, topography, natural resources, and historic resources on site. c. An analysis of the minimum amount of land needed to achieve the goals and requirements of this section. Also, the state land planning agency has historically recognized the consideration of community desires (e.g. if the community has an articulated vision for an area as to the type of development desired, such as within a Community Redevelopment Area), and existing incompatibilities (e.g. presently allowed uses would be incompatible with surrounding uses and conditions). 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 781 Attachment: Transmittal CCPC Staff Report BGTRO 6.07.2021 [Revision 1] (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Page 7 of 8 FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS: • There are no unacceptable environmental impacts resulting from this petition. • No historic or archaeological sites are affected by this amendment. • Transportation Planning specifics regarding Traffic Impact Study and access management requirements and timing will need to be addressed in the forthcoming proposed LDC amendments. • There are no utility-related concerns caused by this petition. • There are no concerns regarding impacts upon other infrastructure components. • This amendment does not alter the boundaries of the B/GTRO nor increase the density permitted within the B/GTRO simply allows for a reallocation of unused and entitled residential units from a development to replenish the already existing bonus density pool. • The ability to replenish the finite number of bonus density pool units available, as well as the allowance for properties two acres or less to use the bonus density pool units, may provide a viable incentive to spark development/redevelopment interest within the B/GTRO. • The addition of eligibility criteria for projects that use bonus density pool units to contribute to public realm improvements and to not be gated furthers the intent of the Overlay and CRA Plan to revitalize the area, provide for urban-style development and interconnectedness between properties and neighborhoods. • Expiration timeframe placed on density bonus pool units allows for these units to not be tied up in projects that will not be developed or are underdeveloped. • The amendment provides clarity to the relationship of the Overlay to the underlying zoning district and proposed prohibited uses, and the intent to eliminate uses that are not consistent with the character of the community. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM) NOTES: As this is not considered a site-specific GMP amendment, a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) is not required by LDC Section 10.03.05 F. A C-4 and C-5 Property Owner’s meeting was held on October 29, 2020 where proposed changes to the heavy commercial uses were discussed. This GMP amendment along with proposed LDC amendments were discussed at two CRA Advisory Board Meetings. Scope of GMP and LDC changes was introduced during the November 12, 2020 CRA Advisory Board Special Meeting. Comments from this meeting were collected and proposed scope of changes were updated, including the removal of a maximum contribution limit for Density Bonus Pool of $500,000. On January 11, 2021 the CRA Advisory Board reviewed updated draft changes and CRA staff was provided with the direction to move the GMP and LDC amendments forward. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: The County Attorney’s office reviewed the Staff report on June 7, 2021. The criteria for GMP amendments to the Future Land Use Element are in Sections 163.3177(1)(f) and 163.3177(6)(a)2, Florida Statutes. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PL20210000603 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to approve for transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity and other statutorily required review agencies. 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 782 Attachment: Transmittal CCPC Staff Report BGTRO 6.07.2021 [Revision 1] (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Page 8 of 8 Attachments: A) Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay Ordinance B) Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay Map C) Public Comments D) Data and Analysis Memo from Johnson Engineering 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 783 Attachment: Transmittal CCPC Staff Report BGTRO 6.07.2021 [Revision 1] (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 784 Attachment: Resolution and Exhibit A 5-28-21 (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 785 Attachment: Resolution and Exhibit A 5-28-21 (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text. EXHIBIT A FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT II. IMPLEMENTION STRATEGY *** *** *** *** text break*** *** *** *** FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION SECTION *** *** *** *** text break*** *** *** *** V. OVERLAYS AND SPECIAL FEATURES *** *** *** *** text break*** *** *** *** F. Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay The Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment (BGTR) Overlay, depicted on the Future Land Use Map, is within the boundaries of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Plan adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on June 13, 2000, as updated by Board Resolution 2019-75. The intent of the redevelopment program is to encourage the revitalization of the Bayshore/ Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Area (BGTCRA) by providing incentives that will encourage the private sector to invest in this urban area. This Overlay allows for additional neighborhood commercial uses and increased intensity and higher residential densities that will promote the assembly of property, or joint ventures between property owners, while providing interconnections between properties and neighborhoods. The intent of this BGTR Overlay is to allow for more intense development in an urban area where urban services are available. Two zoning overlays have been adopted into the Collier County Land Development Code to aid in the implementation of this Overlay. Within the BGTR Overlay a density bonus pool has been established to incentivize investment within the BGTCRA. The density bonus pool units available to a project are to incentivize redevelopment and to promote investment in the public realm. After the [effective date of Ordinance], all projects utilizing the density pool are subject to the access and public realm requirements. The following provisions and restrictions apply to this Overlay: 1. Mixed-Use Development: A mix of residential and commercial uses is permitted. For such development, commercial uses are limited to C-1 through C-3 zoning district uses, except as otherwise provided for in the Mini Triangle Subdistrict; hotel/motel use; theatrical producers (except motion picture), bands, orchestras, and entertainers; and, uses as may be allowed by applicable FLUE Policies. Mixed-use projects will be pedestrian oriented and are encouraged to provide access (vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle) to nearby residential areas. The intent is to encourage pedestrian use of the commercial area and to provide opportunity for nearby residents to access these commercial uses without traveling onto major roadways. Parking facilities are encouraged to be located in the rear of the buildings or in parking structures that may be below, at, or above grade, with the buildings oriented closer to the major roadway to promote traditional urban development. 2. Residential uses are allowed within this Overlay. Permitted density shall be as determined through application of the Density Rating System, and applicable FLUE Policies, except as provided below, or as may be limited by a zoning overlay, or as PL20210000603 05/27/2021 Page 1 of 5 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 786 Attachment: Resolution and Exhibit A 5-28-21 (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text. otherwise provided within the Mini Triangle Subdistrict. 3. Non-residential/non-commercial uses allowed within this Overlay include essential services; parks, recreation and open space uses; water-dependent and water-related uses; child care centers; community facility uses; safety service facilities; and utility and communication facilities. 4. Density Bonus Pool for mixed use development. Properties with access to US 41 East and/or Bayshore Drive and/or Davis Boulevard (SR 84) and/or the west side of Airport- Pulling Road may be allowed a maximum density of twelve (12) residential units per acre via use of the density bonus pool identified described further in paragraph 1112 below, except that no project may utilize more than 97 units – 25% of the total density pool units available, or 10 units, whichever is greater. The 97 unit cap will terminate when the BCC adopts, by LDC amendment, limitations and a cap on the use of the 388 density pool units for any one project. In order to be eligible for this higher density, the project must be integrated into a mixed-use development with access to existing neighborhoods and adjoining commercial properties and comply with the standards identified in paragraph no. 89 and no. 15, below, except for mixed use projects developed developments within the “mini triangle” catalyst project site as identified on the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay Map. The “mini triangle” catalyst project site is eligible for the maximum density of 12 units per acre, with development standards as contained in the Gateway Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zoning District zoning overlay, adopted February 28,2006 (Ordinance No. 06-08), and amended December 14, 2006 (Ordinance No. 06-63), and subsequently amended. For projects that do not comply with the requirements for this density increase the criteria established herein for density bonus pool eligibility, their density is limited to that allowed by the Density Rating System and applicable FLUE Policies, except as may be limited by a future the applicable zoning overlay. Properties located within the Mini Triangle Subdistrict are exempt from this paragraph. 5. Density bonus pool for residential-only projects on Bayshore Drive. Properties having frontage on one or more of Bayshore Drive, Davis Boulevard, Airport-Pulling Road (west side only) or US 41 East, may be allowed to redevelop as a residential-only project at a maximum density of eight (8) residential units per acre via use of the density bonus pool identified in paragraph 11 pool identified in paragraph 12, except that no project may utilize more than 97 units – 25% of the 388 total density bonus pool units available or 10 units, whichever is greater. The 97 unit cap will terminate when the BCC adopts, by LDC amendment, limitations and a cap on the use of the 388 density pool units for any one project. In order to be eligible for this higher density the redevelopment the density bonus pool units, the residential-only project along Bayshore Drive must comply with the following: a. Project shall be in the form of a PUD. b. Project site shall be a minimum of three acres. c. Project shall constitute redevelopment of the site. d.c. All residential units shall be market rate units. d. Project must comply with eligibility criteria in paragraph no.15 below. For projects that do not comply with the requirements for this density increase criteria established herein for density bonus pool eligibility, their density is limited to that allowed by the Density Rating System and applicable FLUE Policies and that of the PL20210000603 05/27/2021 Page 2 of 5 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 787 Attachment: Resolution and Exhibit A 5-28-21 (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text. applicable zoning overlay. Properties located within the Mini Triangle Subdistrict are exempt from this paragraph. 6. Density Bonus Pool for Multi-Family or Mixed Use developments up to 2 acres in size. Up to 2 additional dwelling units per acre, are allowed to be allocated to multi-family or mixed use developments through a limited density bonus pool allocation from the density bonus pool identified in paragraph 12, subject to eligibility criteria listed in a-e below. a. The development shall be within a zoning district or overlay zoning district that permits multi-family development or mixed use development. b. The property is limited to a maximum of 2 acres. An allocation request shall not be granted for property that is subdivided after the [effective date of Ordinance], c. The maximum number of additional units is limited to four (4) additional units, and shall not exceed a density increase of 2 additional dwelling units per acre. d. The development must satisfy the development standards of the Bayshore Mixed Use Overlay Zoning District or the Gateway Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zoning District and applicable standards of the Limited Density Bonus Pool Allocation in the Land Development Code. e. Development must comply with eligibility criteria in paragraph no.15 below. 67. For parcels currently within the boundaries of Mixed Use Activity Center #16, land uses will continue to be governed by the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict, except residential density may also be increased through the density bonus pool as provided for in paragraphs 4 and 5 through 6, above. The development standards of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay Zoning District or Gateway Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zoning District in the Collier County Land Development Code, whichever is applicable, shall apply to all new development within the Activity Center. 78. Existing Underlying zoning districts for some properties within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment BGTR Overlay allow uses, densities and development standards that are inconsistent with the uses, densities and development standards allowed within this Overlay. These properties are allowed to develop and redevelop in accordance with the uses within their existing underlying zoning until such time as a zoning overlay is adopted which may limit such uses, densities and development standards. except for prohibited uses established within section 4.02.16 of the LDC. For such prohibited uses existing as of [effective date of Ordinance], the use may continue to operate as identified within LDC section 9.03.00-Nonconformities. 89. To qualify for twelve (12) dwelling units per acre, as provided for in paragraph no. 4 above (Density Bonus Pool for mixed use developments), or as otherwise permitted within the Mini Triangle Subdistrict, mixed use projects within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment BGTR Overlay must comply with the design standards of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay Zoning District or Gateway Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zoning District in the Collier County Land Development Code, whichever is applicable, or in the case of the Mini Triangle Subdistrict, mixed use projects may utilize the design standards set forth in the Mini Triangle Subdistrict and its implementing MPUD zoning. 910. For density bonuses provided for in paragraphs nos. 4 and 5 through 6 above, base density shall be per the underlying zoning district. The maximum density of twelve (12) PL20210000603 05/27/2021 Page 3 of 5 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 788 Attachment: Resolution and Exhibit A 5-28-21 (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text. or eight (8) units per acre shall be calculated based upon total project acreage. The total project acreage may be counted for density purposes. The bonus density allocation is calculated by deducting the base density of the underlying zoning classification from the maximum density being sought. The difference in units per acre determines the bonus density allocation requested for the project. 1011. Only the affordable-workforce housing density bonus, as provided in the Density Rating System, and the density provided for within the Mini Triangle Subdistrict are allowed in addition to the eligible density provided herein. For all properties, the maximum density allowed is that specified under Density Conditions in the Density Rating System, except as provided for within the Mini Triangle Subdistrict. 12. Density Bonus Pool. A maximum of 388 dwelling units are permitted were originally allocated to be utilized in this BGTR Overlay for density bonuses, as provided in paragraphs nos. 4 through 6 and 5 above and paragraph no.14 below. This The 388 dwelling unit density bonus pool correspondscorresponded with the number of dwelling units previously entitled to the Botanical Gardens sites prior to their rezone in 2003 to establish the Naples Botanical Gardens PUD. Projects within the “mini triangle” are not required to utilize this density bonus pool. The Density Bonus Pool will be updated and tracked by the County Manager or designee. The Density Bonus Pool can be increased by Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners through allocation of residential units that are not developed. The residential units not developed will be permanently dedicated to the Density Bonus Pool via a legally recorded instrument that restricts the property from developing the dedicated units in the following circumstances: a. A property with a residential density entitlement transitions to a governmental, civic or institutional use, similar to the transition of the Botanical Gardens site to the Naples Botanical Gardens PUD, or b. A property with a residential density entitlement transitions to a commercial use, or c. A residential development is developed with fewer units than otherwise would be allowed per the eligible density of the underlying zoning district. 12 13. The Botanical Garden, Inc. properties located in Section 23, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, and shown on the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay Map, shall be limited to non-residential uses except for caretaker, dormitory, and other housing integrally related to the Botanical Garden or other institutional and/or recreational open space uses. 1314. The 9.93± acre Camden Landing Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) property located on the northeast corner of Bayshore Drive and Thomasson Road in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, and shown on the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay Map, shall be allowed up to 127 market rate multifamilv dwelling units, limited to townhouse and condominiums. No rental apartments shall be permitted. The maximum density allowed shall be 12.8 dwelling units per acre for a maximum of 127 dwelling units (achieved through the utilization of 97 dwelling units from the existing density bonus pool established within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay and 30 base dwelling units for which the site qualifies). A maximum of ninety-seven (97) density bonus pool units, as provided by the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay (B/GTRO) in the Future Land Use PL20210000603 05/27/2021 Page 4 of 5 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 789 Attachment: Resolution and Exhibit A 5-28-21 (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Text underlined is added; text strike through is deleted. Rows of Asterisks (** *** **) denotes break in text. Element of the GMP, are available for this RPUD for a period of seven (7) years from the date of approval of this PUDA. If, after seven (7) years, any of the bonus units have not been utilized, the bonus units shall expire and not be available unless authorized by the Board of Zoning Appeals. 15. For eligibility to utilize the density bonus pool, the project’s vehicular access shall not be gated, and the project shall provide public realm improvements. Public realm improvements are outlined within Objective 1, 2 and 3 of Element 5.3.2 and Objective 3 of Element 5.3.5 of the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Plan (adopted by Board Resolution 2019-75); the adopted Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Area Public Arts Plan; and County approved Stormwater Master Plans or County approved Capital Plans for projects within the BGTCRA. The qualifying public realm improvements are specified in section 4.02.16.C.11 of the Land Development Code. 16. Expiration. If units are allocated from the density bonus pool and then not developed, these unused units shall revert back to the density pool in compliance with 4.02.16 of the Land Development Code. # # # # # # # # # # # # # # PL20210000603 05/27/2021 Page 5 of 5 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 790 Attachment: Resolution and Exhibit A 5-28-21 (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 791 Attachment: BGTRO Overlay Map (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) 2350 Stanford Court ■ Naples, Florida 34112 (239) 434-0333 ■ Fax (239) 434-9320 SINCE 1 946 Please find attached to the support Data and Analysis for the proposed Bayshore Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) Density Pool Growth Management Plan (GMP) amendment and subsequent Land Development Code (LDC) Amendment. The following documents are provided within the package. Ordinance NO. 2000-87, the GMP amendment that adopted the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay, which established the original density bonus for the Overlay. The 388 dwelling units that were density associated with the lands that were to be rezoned to the Naples Botanical Garden PUD and to become available within the Overlay after the rezoning of the property. Justification for what is proposed within current the Density Pool GMP amendment. Ordinance NO. 2007-18, The GMP amendment that modified the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay to designate the 388 units density bonus units available to the Overlay, as the Density Pool Units and eliminate the restriction of these units, recognizing the Botanical Garden PUD rezone had already transpired. Another recognition that density within the Overlay, when transitioned to non-residential use can be utilized by the Overlay to promote the redevelopment goals of the CRA. The update Bayshore Redevelopment Plan, adopted by the BCC on May 13, 2019. The plan through Objective 1, Strategy 2 directs that, “In awarding density pool units, establish eligibility requirements and/or performance metrics that promote these urban approaches.” This directive supports the newly established criteria for density pool participation proposed with the proposed Density Pool amendment, as well as the public realm improvements proposed. Located on page 5-3-14 of the attached Redevelopment Plan. Objective 3, Strategy 1 promotes the identification of opportunities and incentives for the promotion of public art and other public realm improvements (page 5-3-22). As proposed within the public realm improvements proposed within the Density Pool amendments. Additional Public Realm support within the Redevelopment Plan can be found within Objective 1 (page 5-3-14), 2 (page 5-3-16) and 3 (page 53- 22) of Element 5.3.2. Ordinance NO. 17-18, The Mattamy RPUD, which on page 11 contains a provision to where unused Density Pool Units revert to the Density Pool if not used within a specific time frame, as proposed within the Density Pool amendment. TO: Jeremy Frantz DATE: February 18, 2020 FROM: Mike Bosi, AICP RE: Data & Analysis Density Pool GMP and LDC amendments 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 792 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 793 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 794 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 795 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 796 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 797 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 798 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 799 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 800 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 801 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 802 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 803 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 804 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) 0'\'\ 1213 7<1l.:", be'!> .... .$' ~~ ". 1' 0,.;.,\CCl -;., \ V>__ 7 ,- 0\ L JEB 200 ~\\ ORDINANCE NO. 07--LB- RECEIVED i~).N ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 89- tool!' _/<';/05, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH6?& Zl.Z91-r:;~\ l;'/ MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES; BY PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND BY PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Collier County Growth Management Plan on January 10,1989; and WHEREAS, Collier County has held public hearings to provide for and encourage public participation throughout the 2006-07 plan amendment process; and WHEREAS, Collier County did submit the 2006-07 Growth Management Plan Amendments to the Department of Community Affairs for preliminary review on May 26, 2006; and WHEREAS, the Department of Community Affairs did review and did make written objections to the FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES Amendments to the Growth Management Plan and trans'mitted the same in writing to Collier County within the time provided by law; and WHEREAS, Collier County has 120 days from receipt of the written objections from the Department of Community Affairs to adopt, adopt with changes or not adopt the proposed FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES Amendments to the Growth Management Plan; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County did take action in the manner prescribed by law and did hold public hearings concerning the adoption of the FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES Amendments to the Growth Management Plan on January 25,2007; and WHEREAS, all applicable substantive and procedural requirements of law have been met; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN. This Ordinance as described herein, shall be known as the FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES Amendments to the Growth Management Plan for Collier County, Florida. The Collier County Growth Management Plan FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES Amendment is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. 1 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 805 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) SECTION TWO: SEVERABILITY. If any phrase or portion of this Ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion. SECTION THREE: EFFECTIVE DATE. The effective date of this Amendment to the FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES shall be the date a final order is issued by the Department of Community Affairs or Administration Commission finding the Element in compliance in accordance with Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes, whichever occurs earlier. No development orders, development permits, or land uses dependent on this Element may be issued or commence before it has become effective. If a final order of noncompliance is issued by the Administration Commission, this amendment may nevertheless be made effective by adoption of a Resolution affirming its effective status, a copy of which Resolution shall be sent to the Department of Community Affairs, Bureau of Local Planning, 2555 Shumard Oaks Blvd., 3rd Floor, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County this 25th day of January. 2007. CK, CLERK v. . ,,/1~/ c .wf'L. ht~rks' 'to Ch.1 i rtio4il , S,jgllit'ur..'un J: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNfY, FL ID BY: JAMEStOLETTA, CHAIR APPROVED' AS'"TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: R(~ L ~.l~T~.(N~-~i-(~~ ~ ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY 2007 FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES This ordinance filed with th0 S~ry of State~ Office.. Ih0._ ay of "'e , _Lcn--:J. a,n.d acknawledgemer!? ill that fol"",,- ~ .., 010" of k... ~q , I D{Q~~ Depuf'1 Cter'<: . 2 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 806 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Future Land Use Element As Adopted by BCC 2-2-07 EXHIBIT "An Goal, Objectives and Policies Future Land Use Element (FLUE) GOAL:No change to text, page 11] OBJECTIVE 1:No change to text, page 11] Policy 1.1:Revised text, page 11] A. URBAN - MIXED USE DISTRICT 1. Urban Residential Subdistrict 2. Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict 3. Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict 4. Business Park Subdistrict 5. Office and Infill Commercial Subdistrict 6. PUD Neighborhood Village Center Subdistrict 7. Residential Mixed Use Neighborhood Subdistrict 8. Orange Blossom Mixed-Use Subdistrict 9. Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict 1*)9. Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict HlO. Henderson Creek Mixed-Use Subdistrict 2-11. Research and Technology Park Subdistrict H12. Buckley Mixed-Use Subdistrict 4U. Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict M-14. Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road Mixed-Use Subdistrict 15. Livingston/Radio Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict 16. Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict B. URBAN - COMMERCIAL DISTRICT 1. Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict 2. Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict 3. LivingstonlPine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict 4. Business Park Subdistrict 5. Research and Technology Park Subdistrict 6. Livingston Road/Eatonwood Lane Commercial Infill Subdistrict 7. Livingston Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict 8. Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict 9. LiviRgstoHlRadio Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict 1*)2.. Livingston RoadlVeterans Memorial Boulevard Commercial Infill Subdistrict 11. VaRderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict 10. GoodlettelPine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict Words underlined are added; words Gtruol< through are deleted. 1 Indicates break in text *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***** *** 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 807 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Future Land Use Element As Adopted by BCC 2-2-07 Policy 1.2:No change to text, page 12] Policy 1.3:No change to text, page 12] Policy 1.4:No change to text, page 12] Policy 1.5:No change to text, page 12] OBJECTIVE 2:No change to text, page 12] Policy 2.1:No change to text, page 12] Policy 2.2:No change to text, page 12] Policy 2.3:No change to text, page 12.1] Policy 2.4:Revised text, page 12.1] Developmeats \vithin the SmIth U.s. TCEi\ that obtain an exception from concurrency requirements for transportation, p\:l rs\:l ant to the certification process described in Traasportation Elemeat, Policy 5.6, and that include affordable housing (as per Sectioa 2.7.7 of the Collier County Land Development Code, as amended) as part of their plan of development shall not be subject to the Traffic Congestion Deasity Reduction as coataiaed ia the Density Rating System of this Element. Developmeats v:ithin the Northwest and East Central TC~V\.s that meet the req\:lirements of FLUE Policies 6.1 through 6.5, and Transportation Policies 5.7 aad 5.&, aad that include affordable housiag (as per Section 2.7.7 of the Collier County Land Developmeat Code, as amended) as part of their plan of development shall not be subject to the Traffic Congestion Density Reduction, as contained in the Density Rating System of this Elemeat. Policy 2.5:No change to text, page 12.1] Policy 2.6 New text] Traffic impacts generated by new development are regulated through the implementation of a .checkbook' transportation concurrency management system. which incorporates two Transportation Concurrency Management Areas (TCMAs) and a Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA). New developments within the TCMAs and the TCEA that commit to certain identified traffic management strategies shall reduce (the TCMAs) the traffic impact mitigation measures that would otherwise be applied to such developments. Words underlined are added; words struok through are deleted. 2 Indicates break in text *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***** *** 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 808 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Future Land Use Element As Adopted by BCC 2-2-07 OBJECTIVE 3:Revised text, page 13] Land Development Regulations have been adopted to implement this Growth Management Plan pursuant to Chapter 163.3202, Florida Statutes (F.S.l, in order to ensure protection of natural and historic resources, ensure the availability of land for utility facilities, promote compatible land uses within the airport noise zone, and to provide for management of growth in an efficient and effective manner. Policy 3.1:Revised text, pages 13, 14] Land Development Regulations have been adopted into the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) that contain provisions to implement the Growth Management Plan through the development review process~ aaa These include the following prOVIsIOns: a. The LDC contains Collier County Subdivision Code shall proyidc for procedures and standards for the orderly development and subdivision of real estate in order to ensure proper legal description, identification, documentation and recording of real estate boundaries and adequate infrastructure for development. b. The LDC contains provisions that PQrotect environmentally sensitive lands and provide for the retention of open space. This shall be has been accomplished~ through the implementation of various zoning districts and zoning overlays that restrict higher intensity land uses in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District through ariol:ls Land Use Designations that restrict higher intensity land uses and. which require specific land development standards for the remaining allowable land uses~ aaa through the adoption of permanent Natural Resource Protection Area NRP Al Overlays~ aaa integration of State of Florida Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern regulations into the Collier County Land Dcwelopment Code LDC, and.. in part.. through implementation of the Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay. This sftaH. has also been accomplished through the implementation of regulations such as minimum open space requirements. aaa native vegetation preservation requirements, and/or through the creation of incentives that encourage the use of creative land use planning techniques and innovative approaches to development in the County's Agricultural/Rural Designated Area. c. Drainage and stormwater management practices shall be regulated governed by the implemeatation of the South Florida Water Management District Surface Water Management regulations. d. Identified potable water wellfields are depicted on the Future Land Use Map Series as wellhead protection areas. Policy 3.1. 1 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element specifies prohibitions and restrictions on land use in order to protect these identified wellfields. Words underlined are added; words struok through are deleted. 3 Indicates break in text *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***** *** 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 809 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Future Land Use Element As Adopted by BCC 2-2.07 e. Signage regulations in the LDC Regulate signage through the Sign Ordinance, which shall provide for include frontage requirements for signs, require shared signs for smaller properties, contain definitions. and establishment of include an amortization schedule for non-conforming signs. f. The safe and convenient flow of on-site traffic flew, as well as the design of vehicle parking areas needs shall be are addressed through the site design standards as '.vell as and site development plan requirements of the LDC, which include: access requirements from roadways, parking lot design and orientation, lighting, building design and materials, and landscaping and buffering criteria. g. The LDC ~nsure~ the availability of suitable land for utility facilities, and other essential services necessary to support proposed development. by providing feI:-a Public Use Zoning District for the location of public facilities and other essential services in the Public Use Zoning District, and in other zoning districts via the Essential Services regulations. h. The LDC provides for the protection of historically significant properties shall be accomplished, in part, through regulations that: provide for the adoption of the Historic/Archaeological Preservation Regulations v/hich include the creation of an Historic/Archaeological Preservation Board; provides for the identification of mapped areas of Hhistoric/A~rchaeological probability; requires completion of a survey and assessment of discovered sites; and. provides a process for designation of sites, structures, buildings and properties as historically and/or archaeologically significant. 1. The mitigation of incompatible land uses within the area designated as the Naples irport Noise Zone Airport Noise Area on the Future Land Use Map shall be accomplished through~ implementation of regulations wffieft that require sound- proofing for all new residential structures built within the 65 LDN Contour as identified on tHe FutHre Land Use Map; recording of the legal descriptions of the noise contours boundary in the property records of the County~ and. through an the inter-local agreement with the Naples Airport Authority that requires te the County to notify the Naples ,A.irport Authority of all development proposals located within 20,000 feet of the airport wffieft that exceed height standards established by the Federal Aviation Administration. J. Collier County shall not Ne issue development orders shall be issued vlhich that are inconsistent with the provisions of this Growth Management Plan. Some projects and properties may be inconsistent with densities and land use intensities established in the Future Land Use Designation Description Section of this Element, but these proiects and properties are have been found to be consistent with this Plafl. Element via consistency with one or more of Policies 5.9 through 5. 13. Words underlined are added; words &truok through are deleted. 4 Indicates break in text *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***** *** 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 810 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Future Land Use Element As Adopted by BCC 2-2-07 Policy 3.2:Revised text, page 14] The Land Development Regulations have been codified into a single unified Land Development Code (Ordinance 91 102 04-41, as amended). The development review process has been evaluated and improved to focus on efficiency and effectiveness through unification of all review staff into a single organizational unit and through streamlining procedures of the review process. OBjECTIVE 4:No change to text, page 14] Policy 4.1:Revised text, page 14] A detailed Master Plan for the Golden Gate Estates Area has been developed and was incorporated into this Growth Management Plan in February 1991. Subsequent maior revisions were adopted in 1997 following the 1996 Evaluation and Appraisal Report, and in 2002 and 2004 principally based upon recommendations of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy Committee. The Golden Gate Area Master Plan encompasses Golden Gate Estates subdivision, Golden Gate City, and the Rural Settlement Area formerly known as North Golden Gate. The Master Plan addresses Nnatural Rresources, I<future bland Ygse, preservation of the Estates' rural character. '.If ater Management, transportation improvements, other PQublic I< faci1ities.. and the provision of emergency services other considerations. Policy 4.2:Revised text, page 15] A detailed Master Plan for the Immoka1ee Urban designated area has been developed and was incorporated into this Growth Management Plan in February, 1991. Maior revisions were adopted in 1997 following the 1996 Evaluation and Appraisal Report. The Immokalee Area Master Plan addresses Natural Resources conservation, I<future bland Ygse, population, recreation, transportation Public Facilities, Hhousing, Urban Design, and the local economy Land DevelopmeFlt Regl:llations and other consideratioFls. Major purposes of the Master Plan shall be are coordination of land use~ and transportation planning, redevelopment or renewal of blighted areas.. and elimination of laFld I:lses iFlcoFlsistent with the community's character the promotion of economic development. Policy 4.3:Revised text, page 15] A detailed Master Plan for Marco Island has been developed and was incorporated into this Growth Management Plan in January 1997. The Marco Island Master Plan addressegs PQopulation, PQublic I<facilities, I<future bland Ygse, Ygrban Dgesign, bland Dgevelopment Rregulations.. and other considerations. However. all lands that were encompassed by the Master Plan are now within the City of Marco Island and are subiect to its comprehensive plan and land development regulations. Accordingly, the Marco Island Master Plan has been deleted from the Collier County Growth Management Plan. Words underlined are added; words E:trlJok throlJgh are deleted. 5 Indicates break in text *** *** *** *** *** *** *** **'* ***** *** 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 811 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Future Land Use Element As Adopted by BCC 2-2.07 Policy 4.4:Revised text, page 15] Corridor Management Plans have been developed by Collier County in conjunction with the City of Naples. These Plans identify appropriate urban design objectives and recommend Land Development Regulations and Capital Improvements to accomplish those objectives. Plans have been completed for the follO'.ving road corridors: Goodlette- Frank Road south of Pine Ridge Road, and for Golden Gate Parkway from US 41 to Santa Barbara Boulevard. The Corridor Management (zoning) Overlay has been adopted into the Land Development Code; it imposes additional development standards and limitations upon properties located along these two road segments. Future Corridor Management Plans may be prepared iointly with the City of Naples as directed by the Board of County Commissioners. The geals objectives for each Corridor Management Plan will be established prior to the development of the Plan. Corridors that may be considered jointly with the City of Naples include: a. Pine Ridge Road from US 41 to Goodlette-Frank Road; b. Davis Boulevard from US 41 to Airport-Pulling Road; c. US 41 from Creech Road to Pine Ridge Road; and d. US 41 from Davis Boulevard to Airport-Pulling Road. Policy 4.5: [Revised text, page 15] An Industrial Land Use Study has been developed and a summary of the Study has been incorporated into the support document of this Growth Management Plan. The S,5tudy includes a detailed inventory of industrial uses, projections of demand for industrial land, and recommendations for future land use allocations and locational criteria. Yren Subsequent to completion of the Economic Plaft Element of this Growth Management Plan. adopted in December 2003. staff shall prepare an update to the Industrial Land Use Study a study """ill be undertaken to ideatify the need for additional IndMstrially designated laRd v;ithia the Coastal Urban Area. Policy 4.6:Revised text, pages 15, 16] Access Management Plan proVISIOns have been developed for Mixed Use and Interchange Activity Centers designated on the Future Land Use Map have been developed and these provisions have been incorporated into the Collier County Land Development Code. The intent of the Access Management Plan provisions is defined by the following guidelines and principles: a. The number of ingress and egress points shall be minimized and shall be combined and signalized to the maximum extent possible. b. Spacing of access points shall meet, to the maximum extent possible, the standards set forth in the Collier County Access Control Policy (Resolution #01- 247, adopted June 26, 2001). Words underlined are added; words struok through are deleted. 6 Indicates break in text *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***** *** 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 812 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Future Land Use Element As Adopted by BCC 2-2-07 c. Access points and turning movements shall be located and designed to minimize interference with the operation of existing and planned interchanges and intersections. d. Developers of blots, parcels, and subdivisions, which are created, shall be encouraged to dedicate cross-access easements, rights-of-way, and limited access easements, as necessary and appropriate, in order to ensure compliance with ili:at the above-mentioned standards (a. - c.) are complied '.vith. Policy 4.7:Revised text, page 16] The Board of County Commissioners may consider whether to adopt &redevelopment P12lans for existing commercial and residential areas may be considered by the Board of County Commissioners. +hese Such plans may consider include alternative land use~ modifications to development standards, and incentives that may be necessary to encourage redevelopment. The Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Plan was adopted by the Board on March 14. 2000: it encompasses the Bayshore Drive corridor and the triangle area formed by US 41 East. Davis Boulevard and Airport-Pulling Road. For properties that have been reviewed under the Zoning Reeval1:1ation Program, chaRges to the deRsity and intensity of \:Ise permitted may be considered, in order to encourage redeyelopment in these areas. Some of the Other specific areas that may be considered by the Board of County Commissioners for redevelopment include.. but are not necessarily limited to: a. Pine Ridge Road, between U.S. 41 North and Goodlette-Frank Road; b. Bayshore Drive betv/een U.S. 11 East aRd Thomasson Drive; c. U.S. 11 East betvleen Da'lis Boulevard aRd ,^..irport Pulling Road; d. Davis Boule'/ard betv:een U.S. 41 East and ,^..irport Pulling Road; eQ.. U.S. 41 North in Naples Park; and. f. c.R. 951 between GreeR Boulevard and Golden Gate Parkway; and gf. Bonita Beach Road between Vanderbilt Drive and the west end of Little Hickory Shores #1 Subdivision. Policy 4.8:Revised text, page 16] Maintain and update, on an annual basis, the following demographic and land use information: existing permanent population, existing seasonal population, projected population, existing dwelling units, and projected dwelling units. Included with this database shall be a forecast of the geographic distribution of anticipated growth. Population estimates and projections shall be based upon the most recent population bulletin from the University of Florida's Bureau of Economic and Business Research BEBR), except where decennial census estimates are available. For the five years of the annually updated Capital Improvement Plan, on a continuously rolling basis, v/eighted population projections shall be calculated for all public facilities except potable water and sanitary se'.ver using BEBR's htgft medium range growth rate. Population definitions are Words underlined are added; words Gtruok through are deleted. 7 Indicates break in text *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***** *** 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 813 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Future Land Use Element As Adopted by BCC 2-2-07 provided in Policy 1.2 of the Capital Improvement Element. ; thereafter, projections shall be calculated based upon 95% of the BEBR high range growth rate. For potable ':,'ater and sanitary sewer facilities, the peale population shall be calculated, based upon the BEBR high range growth rate population projections through the first ten years, on u continuously rolling basis; thereafter, projections shall be calculated based upon the average of the medium and high range gro',J,'th rate population projections. Policy 4.9:Revised text, page 16] Prepare Pursuant to the Final Order (AC-99-002) issued by the Administration Commission on June 22. 1999, a Rural and Agricultural Area Assessment was prepared between 1999 and 2002. , or any phase thereof, and adopt plan amendments necessary to implement the Based upon the findings and results of the Assessment, amendments to this comprehensive plan were adopted in 2002. including establishment of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District and Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay. or any phase thereof, pursuant to the Final Order (l\'C 99 002) issued by the ,'\dministration Commission on June 22, 1999. The geographic scope of the assessment area, public participation procedures, interim development pro'/isions, and the designation of Natural Resource Protection ,Aseas on the Future Land Use Map are described in detail in the griculturullRural Designation Description Section. Policy 4.10:Revised text, page 17] Public participation and input was shall be a primary feature and goal of the Rural and Agricultural Assessment. planning and assessment effort. Representatives of state and regional agencies shall be invited to participated in. and assisted in.. the aAssessment. The ComIty shall ensure During the three-year Assessment and subsequent comprehensive plan amendment process. community input through each phase of the Assessment ',vhich may include was provided through workshops, public meetings, appointed committees, technical working groups, and established advisory boards including the Environmental Advisory Council Committee and the Collier County Planning Commission in each phase of the Assessment. OBjECTIVE 5:No change to text, page 17] Policy 5.1:Revised text, page 17] All rezonings must be consistent with this Growth Management Plan. Property zoned prior to adoption of the Plan (January 10, 1989) and found to be consistent through the ZaRing Re evaluation Program are consistent with the Growth Management Plan and designated on the Future Land Use Map series as Properties Consistent by Policy. ZaRing changes will be permitted to these properties, aRd to other properties deemed consistent with this Future Land Use Element via Policies 5.9 through 5.12, pro'.'ided the amount of commercial land use, industrial land use, permitted number of dv,'elling units, and the overall intensity of de'/e1opmeRt allowed by the new zoning district, except as allov/ed by Policy 5.11, are not increased. Howe'ler, for these properties approved for Words underlined are added; words struok throllgh are deleted. 8 Indicates break in text *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***** *** 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 814 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Future Land Use Element As Adopted by BCC 2-2-07 commercial and residential uses, an increase in the number of dwelling units may be permitted if accompanied by a reduction in commercial area such that the overall intensity of development allo'.ved by the new zoning district is not increased. Further, though an increase in overall intensity may result, for these properties approved for commercial uses, residential units may be added as provided for in the Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict. 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 5.14. 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. 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. d. For property deemed to be consistent with this Element pursuant to one or more of policies 5.9 through 5.14. 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 proiect. 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. Policy 5.2:Revised text, page 17] All applications and petitions for proposed development shall be consistent with this Growth Management Plan. as determined by reviewed for consistency with the Words underlined are added; words Gtruok through are deleted. 9 Indicates break in text *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***** *** 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 815 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Future Land Use Element As Adopted by BCC 2.2.07 Comprehensi'/e Plan and those found to be inconsistent with the Plan by the Board of County Commissioners shall not be permitted. Policy 5.3: [No change to text, page 17] Policy 5.4:Revised text, page 17] New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in subject to meeting the compatibility criteria of the Land Development Code (Ordinance 91 102 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and October 30, 1991 effective October 18, 2004, as amended}. Policy 5.5:Revised text, page 18] Encourage the use of land presently designated for urban intensity uses before designating other areas for urban intensity uses. This shall occur by planning for the expansion of County owned and operated public facilities and services to existing lands designated for urban intensity uses, the Rural Settlement District (Orangetree PUD formerly known as North Golden Gate), and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District.. before servicing new areas. Policy 5.6:No change to text, page 18] Policy 5.7:No change to text, page 18] Policy 5.8:Revised text, page 18] Group Housing, which may include the following: Family Care Facility, Group Care Facility, Care Units, Assisted Living Facility, and Nursing Homes, shall be allowed permitted within the Urban ggesignated Agrea, and may be allowed in other future land use designations, subject to the definitions and regulations as outlined in the Collier County Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41 91 102, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004 30, 1991) and consistent with the 10cational requirements in Florida Statutes (Chapter 419.001 F.S.). Family Care Facilities, which are residential facilities occupied by not more than six (6) persons, shall be permitted in residential areas. Policy 5.9:Revised text, page 18] Former Policy 3.1k. of the Future Land Use Element provided for the establishment of a Zoning Reevaluation Program to evaluate properties whose zoning did not conform with the Future Land Use Designation Description Section of the Future Land Use Element. This Program was implemented through the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance No. 90-23. Where such properties were determined, through implementation of that Ordinance, to be improved property", as defined in that Ordinance, the zoning on said properties Properties 'Nhich do not conform to the Future Land Use Element but are improved, as determined thro1:lgh the Zoning Re e'/aluation Program described in former Policy 3.1K Words underlined are added; words struok through are deleted. 10 Indicates break in text *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***** *** 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 816 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Future Land Use Element As Adopted by BCC 2.2-07 and implemented through the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance No. 90 23, shall be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element and those properties have been identified on the Future Land Use Map Series as Properties Consistent by Policy. Policy 5.10:Revised text, page 18] The zoning on PJ2.ropertyies for which an exemptions has been granted based on vested rights, dedications, or compatibility determinations, and the zoning on propertyies for which a compatibility exceptions J:n.:we has been granted, both as provided for in the Zoning Re-evaluation Program established pursuant to former Policy 3.1K and implemented through the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance No. 90-23, and as identified on the Future Land Use Map series as Properties Consistent by Policy, shall be considered consistent with the Future Land Use Element. Such property These properties shall be considered consistent with the Future Land Use Element only to the extent of the exemption or exception granted and in accordance with all other limitations and timelines that are provided for in the Zoning Re-evaluation Program. Nothing contained in this policy shall exempt any development from having to comply with any provision of the Growth Management Plan other than the zoning reevaluation program. Additionally, the Copeland, Plantation Island and Chokoloskee Urban areas were exempted from the Zoning Re-evaluation Ordinance. Existing zoning on properties within these communities shall also be considered consistent with the Future Land Use Element. Policy 5.11:Revised text, page 19] Properties whose zoning has been determined to comply with the former Commercial under Criteria provision of the Future Land Use Element shall be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element. These properties are identified on the Future Land Use Map Series as Properties Consistent by Policy. These properties are not subject to the building floor area or traffic impact limitations contained in this former provision. Policy 5.12:Revised text, page 18] The zoning on PJ2.roperties rezoned under the former Industrial Under Criteria provision, or pursuant to wi#l the former provision contained in the former Urban-Industrial District that wlHeh allowed expansion of industrial uses adjacent to abutting lands designated or zoned Industrial, both provision as adopted in Ordinance 89-05 in January, 1989, shall be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element. These properties are identified on the Future Land Use Map Series as Properties Consistent by Policy. Policy 5.13:Revised text, page 19] The following properties identified by in Ordinance # Numbers 98-82;~ 98-91;~ 98-9~~ 99-02;~ 99-11;~ 99-19;~ 99-33;~ and, 2000-20;-~ were previously located in Activity Centers No.1, 2, 6, 8, 11 & and 18, and were rezoned pursuant to those previous the Activity Centers boundaries designated in the 19&9 Comprehensive Plan, as amended. Ordinance No. 2000-27, adopted May 9,2000, modified those Activity Center boundaries to exclude Words underlined are added; words struok through are deleted. 11 Indicates break in text *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***** *** 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 817 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Future Land Use Element As Adopted by BCC 2.2-07 those +hese properties-,- were rezoned dMring the interim period between the adoption of the Future LaRd Use Element in October, 1997 which was not effective due to the notice of intent finding the Future Land Use Element not "in compliance". DCA.' s issuance of a Final Order, on July 22, 2003, brought the Element into compliance. The zoning on hose properties, identified herein, vlhich have modified the boundaries of the 1997 Activity Centers are shall be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element. Policy 5.14:No change to text, pages 19, 19.1 and 19.2] OBjECTIVE 6:No change to text, page 19.2] Policy 6.1:No change to text, page 19.2] Policy 6.2:No change to text, pages 19. 2, 19.3] Policy 6.3:Revised text, page 19.3] In order to be exempt from link specific concurrency, new residential development or redevelopment within Collier County's designated Transportation Concurrency Management Areas (TCMAs) shall utilize at least two of the following Transportation Demand Management (TOM) strategies, as may be applicable: a) Including neighborhood commercial uses within a residential project. b) Providing transit shelters within the development (must be coordinated with Collier County Transit). c) Providing bicycle and pedestrian facilities, with connections to adjacent abutting commercial properties. d) Including affordable housing (minimum of 25% of the units) within the development. e) Vehicular access to adjacent abutting commercial properties. Policy 6.4: [No change to text, page 19.3] Policy 6.5: [No change to text, page 19.3] OBjECTIVE 7: [N 0 change to text, page 19.3] Policy 7.1: [No change to text, page 19.4] Policy 7.2: [No change to text, page 19.4] Policy 7.3: [No change to text, page 19.4] Policy 7.4: [No change to text, page 19.4] Policy 7.5: [Revised text, page 19.4] Words underlined are added; words Gtruol< through are deleted. 12 Indicates break in text *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***** *** 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 818 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Future Land Use Element As Adopted by BCC 2-2-07 The County shall encourage mixed-use development within the same buildings by allowing residential dwelling units over and/or adjacent to abutting commercial development. This policy shall be implemented through provisions in specific subdistricts in this Growth Management Plan. Policy 7.6:N 0 change to text, page 19.4] Policy 7.7:No change to text, page 19.4] FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION SECTION No change to text, page 20] I.URBAN DESIGNATION Revised text, pages 20, 21] Urban 9Q.esignated A~reas on the Future Land Use Map include two general portions of Collier County: areas with the greatest residential densities, and areas in close proximity, which have or are projected to receive future urban support facilities and services. It is intended that Urban 9Q.esignated A~reas accommodate the majority of population growth and that new intensive land uses be located within them. Accordingly, the Urban A~rea will accommodate residential uses and a variety of non-residential uses. The Urban 9Q.esignated A~rea, which includes Immokalee. Copeland. Plantation Island. Chokoloskee. Port of the Islands. and Goodland Marco Island, in addition to the greater Naples area. represents less than 10% of Collier County's land area. The boundaries of the Urban 9Q.esignated A~reas have been established based on several factors, including: patterns of existing development; patterns of approved, but unbuilt, development; natural resources; water management; hurricane risk; existing and proposed public facilities; population projections and the land needed to accommodate the projected population growth. Urban 9Q.esignated A~reas will accommodate the following uses: a. Residential uses including single family, multi-family, duplex, and mobile home. The maximum densities allowed are identified in the Districts, afI:tl Subdistricts and Overlays that follow. except as allowed by certain policies under Obiective 5. b. Non-residential uses including: 3. Water-dependent and water-related uses (see Conservation and Coastal Management Element, Objective 10.1 and subsequent policies and the Collier County Manatee Protection Plan (NR-SP-93-0l), May 1995}; 5. Community facilities such as churches.. group housing uses, cemeteries, schools and school facilities co-located with other public facilities such as parks, libraries, and community centers, where feasible and mutually acceptable; Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted. 13 Indicates break in text *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***** *** 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 819 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Future Land Use Element As Adopted by BCC 2.2-07 11. Support medical facilities:: such as physicians' offices, medical clinics, medical treatment centers, medical research centers and medical rehabilitative centers, and pharmacies:: provided the dominant use is medical related and the site is located within 14, mile of existing or approved hospitals or medical centers which offer primary and urgent care treatment for all types of injuries and traumas, such as, but not limited to, North Collier Hospital. The distance shall be measured from the nearest point of the tract that the hospital is located on or approved for, to the project boundaries of the support medical facilities. Approval of such support medical facilities may be granted concurrent with the approval of new hospitals or medical centers which offer primary and urgent care treatment for all types of injuries and traumas. Stipulations to ensure that the construction of the support medical facilities are is concurrent with hospitals or medical centers shall be determined at the time of zoning approval. Support medical facilities are not allowed under this provision if the hospital or medical center is a short-term leased facility due to the potential for relocation. 12. Commercial uses subject to criteria identified in the Urban - Mixed Use District, PUD Neighborhood Village Center Subdistrict, Office and Infill Commercial Subdistrict, Residential Mixed Use Neighborhood Subdistrict, Orange Blossom Mixed-Use Subdistrict, Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict, Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict, Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict, Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict, Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict, Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road Mixed-Use Subdistrict, Livingston/Radio Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict, Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict; and, in the Urban Commercial District, Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict, Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict, Livingston/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict, Livingston Road/Eatonwood Lane Commercial Infill Subdistrict, Livingston Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict, Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict, Livingston/Radio Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict, Livingston RoadN eterans Memorial Boulevard Commercial Infill Subdistrict, GoodlettelPine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict, Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict; ;i:Hltl in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay; and, as allowed by certain FLUE policies. 14. Industrial uses subject to criteria identified in the Urban - Industrial District, in the Urban Mixed Use District, and in the Urban Commercial District, certain quadrants of Interchange Activity Centers. 15. Hotels/motels as may be allowed in various Subdistricts and Overlays, and by certain FLUE Policies, consistent by Policy 5.9, 5.10, and 5.11, or as permitted ifl the Immokalee Area, Golden Gate .:\rea and Marco Island Master Plans, and as permitted in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Rede':elopmeflt Overlay. Words underlined are added; words struok through are deleted. 14 Indicates break in text *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***** *** 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 820 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Future Land Use Element As Adopted by BCC 2-2-07 A.Urban - Mixed Use District: in 3rd paragraph, page 22] Revised text, remove hyphen in title and 3rd paragraph Port of the Islands is a unique development, which is located within the Urban Designated Area, but is also totally within the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern. However, a portion of the development was determined "vested" by the State of Florida, thus exempting it from the requirements of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. Further, there is an existing Development Agreement between Port of the Islands, Inc. and the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs dated July 2, 1985, which regulates land uses at Port of the Islands. Port of the Islands is eligible for all provisions of the Urban - Mixed Use District in which it is located to the extent that the overall residential density and commercial intensity does not exceed that permitted under zoning at time of adoption of this Plan. 1.Urban Residential Subdistrict:N 0 change to text, page 22.1] J.. Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict: page 23] Renumbered, Revised text, The purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide transitional densities between the Conservation 9Qesignated A.!!rea (primarily located to the south of the Subdistrict) and the remainder of the Urban 9Qesignated A.!!rea (primarily located to the north of the Subdistrict). It The Subdistrict comprises those Urban includes that area~ south of US 41~ betv/ccn generally east of the City of Naples, and generally west of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Neutral Lands. but excludes Section 13. Township 51 South. Range 26 East. Collier Seminolc State Park, including Marco Island and comprises approximately 18,000 11.354 acres and +3-% 10% of the Urban Mixed Use District. The entire Subdistrict is located seaward of the Coastal High Hazard Area Boundary. In order to facilitate hurricane evacuation and to protect the adjacent environmentally sensitive Conservation 9Qesignated A.!!rea, residential densities within the Subdistrict shall ee limited to not exceed a maximum of 4 dwelling units per acre, except as allowed ffi Qy certain FLUE Policies under Obiective 5 the Density Ratiflg System to cxceed 4 units per acre through pro'/ision of .\ffordab1e Housing and Transfer of De','elopmeRt Rights, and except as provided in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay. New rezones to permit mobile home development within this Subdistrict are prohibited. Rezones are recommended to be in the form of a Planned Unit Development. The Marco Island Master Plan shall provide for density, inteflsity, siting criteria and specific staRdards for land use districts encompassed by the Marco Island Master Plan but outside the incorporated area of Marco IslaRd. J ~. Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict: [Renumbered, Revised text, pages 23, 23.1, and 23.2] The purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide transitional densities between the Urban Designated Area and the Agricultural/Rural Area and comprises approximately 5,500 Words underlined are added; words fJtruol< through are deleted. 15 1r1r 1r1r1r *** *** *** *** *** Indicates break in text *** *** *** *** 1r1r1r *** *** *** ***** **1r 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 821 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Future Land Use Element As Adopted by BCC 2- 2-07 acres and 5% of the Urban Mixed Use District. Residential land uses may be allowed at a maximum density of 1.5 units per gross acre, or up to 2.5 units per gross acre via the transfer of up to one dwelling unit per acre from lands designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending or, in the case of properties specifically identified below, a density bonus of up to 6.0 additional units per gross acre may be requested for projects providing affordable-workforce housing (home ownership only) for low and moderate income residents of Collier County, pursuant to Section ~ 2.06.00 of the Land Development Code, or its successor ordinance, except as provided for in paragraph "c" below. Within the Urban Residential Fringe, rezone requests are not subject to the density rating system, except as specifically provided in c. below, but are subject to the following conditions: c. Properties eligible for the Affordable-workforce Housing Density Bonus (home ownership only) will be specifically identified herein. The actual number of bonus units per gross acre shall be reviewed and approved in accordance with the conditions and procedures set forth in Section ~ 2.06.00 of the Land Development Code, except that, Section 2.7.7.3 2.06.03 shall not apply, and the number of dwelling units required to be sold to buyers earning 80% or less of Collier County's median income, as calculated annually by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), shall be at least thirty percent (30%). The following properties are eligible for an Affordable-workforce Housing Density Bonus (home ownership only) of up to 6.0 additional dwelling units per acre. 4 ~. PUD Neighborhood Village Center Subdistrict: [Renumbered, Revised text, page 23.2] The purpose of this Subdistrict is to allow for small-scale retail, offices, and service facilities to serve the daily needs of the residents of a Planned Unit Development (PUD.l zoning district. The acreage eligible for Neighborhood Village Center designation and uses shall be sized in proportion to the number of units to be served, but in no event shall the acreage within the Village Center designated for small scale retail, offices, and service facilities exceed 15 acres. These Neighborhood Village Center uses may be combined with recreational facilities or other amenities of the PUD and shall be conveniently located to serve the PUD. The Village Center shall not have independent access to any roadway external to the PUD and shall be integrated into the PUD. Phasing of construction of the Neighborhood Village Center shall be controlled so that it occurs concurrent with the residential units. The Planned Unit Development district of the Land Development Code has been shall be amended within one (1) year to provide standards and principles regulating access, location and ef integration of the Village Center within the PUD of the Village Center, allowed uses, floor area ratio, and sq\:lare footage aRdlor acreage thresholds. s ~. Business Park Subdistrict:Renumbered text, pages 24, 25] Words underlined are added; words struok through are deleted. 16 Indicates break in text *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***** *** 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 822 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Future Land Use Element As Adopted by BCC 2. 2-07 6~.Office and In-fill Commercial Subdistrict: hyphen from title, revised text, pages 25, 25.1] Renumbered,Remove The intent of this Subdistrict is to allow low intensity office commercial or in-fill commercial development on small parcels within the Urban-Mixed Use District located along arterial and collector roadways where residential development, as allowed by the Density Rating System, may not be compatible or appropriate. Lower intensity office commercial development attracts low traffic volumes on the abutting roadway(s) and is generally compatible with nearby residential and commercial development. The criteria listed below must be met for any project utilizing this Subdistrict. For purposes of this Subdistrict, "abuts" and "abutting" excludes intervening public street, easement (other than utilities) or right-of-way, except for an intervening local street; and "commercial" refers to C-1 through C-5 zoning districts and commercial components of PUDs. f. The depth of the subject property in its entirety, or up to 12 acres for parcels greater than 12 acres in size, for which commercial zoning is being requested, does not exceed the depth of the commercially zoned area on the abutting parcel(s). Where the subject site abuts commercial zoning on both sides, and the depth of the commercially zoned area is not the same on both abutting parcels, the Board of County Commissioners shall have discretion in determining how to interpret the depth of the commercially zoned area which cannot be exceeded, but in no case shall the depth exceed that on the abutting property with the greatest depth of commercial area. This discretion shall be applied on a case:by:case basis. 1. For properties zoned commercial pursuant to any of the Infill Subdistricts in the Urban-Mixed Use District or in the Urban-Commercial District, said commercial zoning shall not qualify to cause the abutting property(s) to become eligible for commercial zoning under this Office and Infill Commercial Subdistrict. q. The maximum acreage eligible to be utilized for the Office and Infill Commercial Subdistrict within the Urban-Mixed Use District is 250 acres. 7.Residential Mixed Use Neighborhood Subdistrict: 25.1, 25.2] Revised text, pages k. The project shall provide street, pedestrian pathway and bike lane interconnections with adjacent abutting properties, where possible and practicable. m. The commercial component of the project shall be internally located with no direct access to adjacent abutting external roadways, or the commercial component shall have frontage on a road classified as an arterial or collector in the Transportation Element. Words underlined are added; words struok through are deleted. 17 Indicates break in text 'It** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***** *** 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 823 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Future Land Use Element As Adopted by BCC 2-2-07 o. For projects located along an arterial or collector road, the number and type of access points shall be limited, as appropriate, so as to minimize disruption of traffic flow on the adjacent abutting arterial or collector roadway. 8. Orange Blossom Mixed -Use Subdistrict: [Remove hyphen from title, revised text, page 26] The intent of this Subdistrict is to allow for limited small-scale retail, office and residential uses while requiring that the project result in a true mixed-use development. The Activity Centers to the Nnorth and g.~outh provide for large-scale commercial uses, while this S.subdistrict will promote small:scale mixed-use development with a pedestrian orientation to serve the homes.. both existing and future.. in the immediate area. This Subdistrict is intended to be a prototype for future mixed-use nodes, providing residents with pedestrian scale development while also reducing existing trip lengths for small- scale commercial services. Commercial uses.. for the purpose of this section.. are limited to those uses allowed in the C-1, C-2 and C-3 zoning districts in the Land Development Code in effect as of the date of adoption of this Subdistrict (May 9, 2000). except as noted below. The development of this S.subdistrict will be governed by the following criteria: b. A unified planned development with a common architectural theme.. which has shared parking and cross access agreements, will be developed. h. Primary entrances to all retail and commercial uses shall be designed for access from the interior of the site. Buildings fronting on Airport-Pulling Road and Orange Blossom ~ Drive will provide secondary accesses facing those streets. J. A residential component equal to at least 25% of the allowable maximum base density under the density rating system must be constructed before the S.subdistrict completes an aggregate total of 40,000 square feet of retail ef or office uses. k. Residential units may be located both on the Nnorth and g.~outh side~ of Orange Blossom Drive. o. No building shall exceed three ill stories in height: with no allOi,vaRce for any under building parking provided shall count towards this height limit. p. Drive-through establishments. which must be architecturally integrated into the main building. will be limited to banks with no more than 3 lanes architocturally int-cgrated into the main building. s. Twenty:foot wide landscape Type D buffers along Orange Blossom Drive and Airport-Pulling Road and a W twenty-foot wide Type C buffer along all other perimeter property lines will be required. t. Parking areas will be screened from Airport-Pulling Road and Orange Blossom Drive.:. ., Words underlined are added; words struok through are deleted. 18 Indicates break in text *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***** *** 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 824 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Future Land Use Element As Adopted by BCC 2. 2-07 u. The Office and Infill Commercial Subdistrict pro'lision is not applicable to any properties adjacent to this Subdistrict. 9. CoodlettelPiae Ridge COlRmereial IaflllSabdistriet:[Relocated text, page 27] This s1:lbdistrict cOflsists of 31 acres afld is located at the northeast q1:ladrant of two major arterial roadways, Pine Ridge Road afld Goodlette Frank Road. Ifl addition to uses allm,ved in the Plan, the intent of the GoodlettelPifle Ridge Commercial Infill S1:lbdistrict is to provide sHopping, personal services and employmeflt for the surro1:lnding residential areas '.vithin a convenient travel distance. The subdistrict is intended to be compatible lith the fleighboring Pine Ridge Middle School afld nearby residential developmeflt and therefore, emphasis will be placed on common buildiflg architecture, signage, landscape design afld site accessibility for pedestrians and bicyclists, as \\'1311 as motor vehicles. ccess to the Goodlette.'Pine Ridge Commercial Infill S1:lbdistrict may feat1:lre a traffic signalized access point on Goodlette Frank Road, \vhich may provide for access to the fleighboring Pifle Ridge Middle School. Other site access locations ',vill be desigfled consistent with the Collier County access management criteria. Development intensity within the district 'Hill be limited to siRgle story retail commercial uses, while professional or medical related offices, incl1:lding financial instit1:ltiofls, may occur in three story buildiflgs. l\ maximum of 275,000 sq1:lare feet of gross leasable area for retail commercial and office and financial institution development may occur within this s1:lbdistrict. Retail commerciall:lses shall be limited to a maximum of 125,000 square feet of gross leasable area on the south II 23 acres. No ifldividual retail tenant may exceed 65,000 square feet of gross leasable area. Unless othef'.Yise required by the South Florida Water Maflagement District, the .87 I.' acre vletland area located on the northeasteffl portion of the site '.vill be preserved. W2. Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict: [Renumbered text, revised text, pages 27, 28] Retail uses shall be limited to single-story. Financial services and offices shall be limited to three stories. A combination of these uses in a single building financial services and/or offices over retail uses - shall be limited to three stories. Also, mixed-use buildings, containing residential uses over commercial uses, shall be limited to three stories. All principal buildings shall be set back a minimum of one (1) foot from the Subdistrict boundaries for each foot of building height. Development within each project or yet to be established PUD District shall be required to have common site, signage and building architectural elements. Each project or PUD District shall provide for both pedestrian and vehicular interconnections with adjacent abutting properties. 1110. Henderson Creek Mixed-Use Subdistrict: [Renumbered, remove hyphen from title, revised text, pages 28, 29] Words underlined are added; words Gtruok through are deleted. 19 Indicates break in text *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***** *** 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 825 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Future Land Use Element As Adopted by BCC 2-2-07 The Henderson Creek Mixed-Use Subdistrict consists of approximately 83 acres and is located east of Collier Boulevard (S.R. 951) and south of U.S. 41 (Tamiami Trail. East). The intent of the Subdistrict is primarily to provide for a mixture of regional commercial uses and residential development,;, , the regional commercial uses are intended to serve the South Naples, and Royal Fakapalm Planning Communities, and the Marco Island areas. Conversely, the +be primary intent of the Subdistrict is not to provide for community and neighborhood commercial uses. The focus of the residential component of the Subdistrict shall be the provision of affordable-workforce housing to support the commercial uses within the Subdistrict, as well as in the South Naples, and Royal Fakapalm Planning Communities, and the Marco Island areas. The entire Subdistrict shall be developed under a unified plan; this unified plan must be in the form of a Planned Unit Development. For purposes of this Subdistrict, the term "regional commercial" is defined as: Retail uses typically dominated by large anchors, including discount department stores, off-price stores, warehouse clubs, and the like, some of which offer a large selection in a particular merchandise category. Regional retail uses also typically utilize square footages ranging from 20,000 to over 100,000 square feet. Regional commercial uses generally have a primary trade area of 5 to 10 radial miles, with a typical store separation of 5 radial miles for any individual regional commercial business. Specific requirements and limitations for the Henderson Creek Mixed-Use Subdistrict are as follows: I:. a. Access to the Subdistrict shall be provided from Collier Boulevard (SR 951) and U.S. 41. These access points shall be connected by a loop road that is opea to the public. A loop road that is open to the public shall connect these access points. b. Vehicular and pedestrian interconnections shall be provided between the residential and commercial portions of the Subdistrict. c. The unified plan of development within the Subdistrict shall include provisions for vehicular and pedestrian interconnection to properties to the north. d. Commercial components of this Subdistrict shall front on Collier Boulevard. e. Commercial uses are limited to a maximum of 40 acres and 325,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area. f. The maximum intensity of commercial uses are those allowed in the C-4, General Commercial, Zoning District. At least one regional commercial use is required to occupy a minimum of 100,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area. Each remaining regional commercial use must occupy a minimum of 20,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area. h. Non-regional commercial uses prohibited in this Subdistrict include grocery stores, fitness centers, auto repair, auto sales, and personal service uses. h Non-regional commercial uses are limited to a maximum of 10% of the total allowed commercial square footage (32,500 square feet). i A maximum of four out-parcels are allowed, all of which must abut Collier Boulevard. All out-parcels shall provide internal vehicular access. All out-parcels are limited to nonregional commercial uses. No out-parcel shall exceed five acres. Words underlined are added; words Gtruok through are deleted. 20 it*. *** *** *** *** Indicates break in text *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***** *** 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 826 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Future Land Use Element As Adopted by BCC 2-2-07 k. Commercial development shall be restricted to one-story buildings with a maximum height of 35 feet. 1. Residential development shall be limited to a maximum of 360 dwelling units, subject to the Density Rating System. However, a minimum of 200 affordable: workforce housing units shall be provided. m. Residential dwellings shall be limited to a maximum height of two habitable stories. n. Both commercial and residential development shall be designed in a common architectural theme. o. Prior to commencement of any development in the Subdistrict, a unified plan of development for the entire Subdistrict must be approved by the Board of Collier County Commissioners. Q.:. The type of landscape buffers within this Subdistrict shall be no less than that required in mixed:use activity centers. 11. Research and Technology Park Subdistrict: text, pages 29, 30, 31] Renumbered text, revised The Research and Technology Park Subdistrict ... ... and shall comply with the following general conditions: a. Research and Technology Parks shall be permitted to include up to 20% of the total acreage for non-target industry uses of the type identified in paragraph "d" below; and, up to 20% of the total acreage for affordable-workforce housing, except as provided in paragraph j below. Similarly, ... ... demonstrate compliance with this requirement. 1. When located in a District other than the Urban Industrial District, the Research and Technology Park must be abutting adjaeeflt to, and have direct principal access to.. a road classified as an arterial or collector in the Transportation Element. Direct principal access is defined as a local roadway connection to the arterial or collector road, provided the portion of the local roadway intended to provide access to the Research and Technology Park is not within a residential neighborhood and does not service a predominately residential area. J. Research and Technology Parks shall only be allowed not be located on land abutting residentially zoned property, unless if the Park provides affordable- workforce housing. When abutting residentially zoned land, up to 40% of the Park's total acreage may be devoted to affordable-workforce housing~ aHd all.. or a portion.. of the affordable-workforce housing is encouraged to be located proximate to affiH such abutting adjacent land where feasible. k. Whenever affordable-workforce housing is provided, it shall be fully integrated with other compatible uses in the park through mixed use buildings and/or through pedestrian and vehicular interconnections. 1. Whenever affordable-workforce housing (affordable housing) is provided, it is allowed at a density consistent with the Density Rating System. Words underlined are added; words struok through are deleted. 21 Indicates break in text *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***** *** 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 827 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Future Land Use Element As Adopted by BCC 2-2-07 lJ12. Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict:Renumbered text, pages 31, 31.1] lJ 15. Livine:stonlRadio Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict: [Renumbered, relocated, revised text, after page 31.1] This Subdistrict consists of + 5.0 acres located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Livingston Road and Radio Road. This Subdistrict allows for those permitted and conditional uses set forth in the Commercial Intermediate Zoning District (C-3) of the Collier County Land Development Code, in effect as of the effective date of adoption of this Subdistrict. (adopted October 26, 2004 by Ordinance No. 2004-71). The following conditional uses, as set forth in the C-3 district in the Land Development Code, shall not be allowed: 1. Amusements and recreation services (Groups 7911, 7922 community theaters only, 7933, 7993, 7999 boat rentaL miniature golf course, bicycle and moped rentaL rental of beach chairs and accessories only.) 2. Homeless shelters, as defined by the Land Development Code, as amended. 3. Social Services (Groups 8322-8399). 4. Soup kitchens, as defined by the Land Development Code, as amended. To encourage mixed-use projects, this Subdistrict also permits residential development. when located in a mixed-use building (residential uses over commercial uses). Such residential development is allowed at a maximum density of 16 dwelling units per acre. The gross acreage of the proiect is used in calculating residential density. The purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide services. including retail uses, to surrounding residential areas within a convenient travel distance to the subiect property. These uses are not an entitlement, nor is the maximum density for residential uses in a mixed-use building. Such uses, and residential density, will be further evaluated at the time of the rezoning application to insure appropriateness in relation to surrounding properties. The maximum development intensity allowed is 50,000 square feet of building area for commercial uses with a maximum height of three (3) stories, not to exceed 35 feet. However, for mixed-use buildings - those containing residential uses over commercial uses - the maximum height is four (4) stories, not to exceed 45 feet. Access to the property within the Subdistrict may be permitted from Radio Road, Market A venue and Livingston Road. Any access to Livingston Road shall be limited to right-in, right-out access. Further. access shall be consistent with the Collier County Access Management Policy in effect at the time of either rezoning or Site Development Plan application, whichever policy is the more restrictive. Words underlined are added; words e:truok through are deleted. 22 Indicates break in text *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***** *** 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 828 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Future Land Use Element As Adopted by BCC 2-2.07 t4 13. Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict: 31.1] Renumbered, Revised text, page The purpose of this Subdistrict is to encourage the development and re-development of commercially zoned properties with a mix of residential and commercial uses. The residential uses may be located above commercial uses, in an attached building, or in a freestanding building. Such mixed-use projects are intended to be developed at a human pedestrian-scale, pedestrian oriented, and interconnected with adjacent abutting projects - whether commercial or residential. This subdistrict is allo'lled in the Urban Mixed Use District subject to the standards and criteria set forth uader the Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict in the Urbafl Commercial District. Within one year of the effective date of regulation establishing this Subdistrict. the Land Development Code shall be amended. as necessary. to implement the provisions of this Subdistrict. Proiects utilizing this Subdistrict shall comply with the following standards and criteria: 1. This Subdistrict is applicable to the C-1 through C-3 zoning districts. and to commercial PUDs and the commercial component of mixed use PUDs where those commercial uses are comparable to those found in the C-l through C-3 zoning districts. 2. Commercial uses and development standards shall be in accordance with the commercial zoning district on the subiect property. 3. Residential density is calculated based upon the gross commercial proiect acreage. For property in the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict. density shall be as limited by that Subdistrict. For property not within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict. but within the Coastal High Hazard Area. density shall be limited to four dwelling units per acre: density in excess of three dwelling units per acre must be comprised of affordable-workforce housing in accordance with Section 2.06.00 of the Land Development Code. Ordinance No. 04-41. as amended. For property not within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict and not within the Coastal High Hazard Area. density shall be limited to sixteen dwelling units per acre: density in excess of three dwelling units per acre and up to eleven dwelling units per acre must be comprised of affordable-workforce housing in accordance with Section 2.06.00 of the Land Development Code. Ordinance No. 04-41. as amended. 4. In the case of residential uses located within a building attached to a commercial building. or in the case of a freestanding residential building. building square footage and acreage devoted to residential uses shall not exceed seventy percent 00%) of the gross building square footage and acreage of the project. 5. Street. pedestrian pathway and bike lane interconnections with abutting properties. where possible and practicable. are encouraged. Words underlined are added; words struok through are deleted. 23 Indicates break in text *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***** *** 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 829 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Future Land Use Element As Adopted by BCC 2. 2-07 t-S 14. Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road Mixed Use Renumbered, Revised text, pages 31.1, 31.2, 31.3] Subdistrict 11. A minimum of 91 residential units shall be developed in the Subdistrict this reflects the Density Rating System's base density of four dwelling units per acre, applied to the total site acreage). For the project's total density - whether it is the minimum of 91 dwelling units, or a greater amount as allowed by the Density Rating System density bonus provisions and approved via rezoning - a minimum of ten percent (10%) must be affordable-workforce housing units provided for those earning less than or equal to 80% of the median household income for Collier County and another minimum of ten percent (10%) must be affordable-workforce housing units provided for those earning greater than 80%, but no greater than 100%, of the median household income for Collier County. B.DENSITY RATING SYSTEM:Revised text, page 36, 37, 37.1, 38] This Density Rating System is only applicable to areas designated on the Future Land Use Map as: Urban, Urban-Mixed Use District~ , and. on a very limited basis. Agricultural/Rural. as identified on the Future Land Use Map, and those properties specifically identified ';;ithin the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, which are eligible to apply for an Affordable Housing Dt:lHsity Bonus and exclusive of It is not applicable to the Urban areas encompassed by the Immokalee Area Master Plan, and the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, and Marco Island Master Plan; these two Elements have their own density provisions. and, ,'\griculturallRural, as proyided for in the Rural Lands Stevlardship /\.rea O';erlay for the ,'\ffordable Housing Density Bonus only. The Density Rating System is applicable to that portion of the Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict to the extent that the residential density cap of 4 dwelling units per acre is not exceeded~ except for the density bonus provisions for Affordable Housing and Transfer of Development Rights, and except as provided for in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay. The final determination of permitted density via implementation of this Density Rating System is made by the Board of County Commissioners through an advertised public hearing process (rezone or Stewardship Receiving Area designation). 1. The Densitv Ratine System is applied in the followine manner: a. Within the applicable Urban Designated Areas, a base density of 4 residential dwelling units per gross acre may be is permitted allowed, though not an entitlement. This base level of density may be adjusted depending upon the location and characteristics of the project. For purposes of calculating the eligible number of dwelling units for a project (gross acreage multiplied by eligible number of dwelling units per acre), the total number of dwelling units may be rounded up by one unit if the dwelling unit total yields a fraction of a unit .5 or greater. Acreage to be used for calculating density is exclusive of: the commercial and industrial portions of a project, except where authorized in a Words underlined are added; words struok through are deleted. 24 Indicates break in text *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***** *** 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 830 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Future Land Use Element As Adopted by BCC 2-2-07 Subdistrict, such as the Orange Blossom Mixed-Use Subdistrict; and, mixed residential and commercial uses as provided for in the C-1 through C-3 zoning districts in the Collier County Land Development Code, via conditional use; and, portions of a project for land uses having an established equivalent residential density in the Collier County Land Development Code. b. Within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, the Density Rating System is applicable for the Affordable-workforce Housing Density Bonus only, as specifically provided for in that Subdistrict. c. Within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSA), the Density Rating System is applicable for the Affordable-workforce Housing Density Bonus only, as specifically provided for in the RLSA for Stewardship Receiving Areas. LThis Density Rating System only applies to residential dwelling units. This Density Rating System is not applicable to accessory dwellings or accessory structures that are not intended and/or not designed for permanent occupancy, and is not applicable to accessory dwellings or accessory structures intended for rental or other commercial use; such accessory dwellings and structures include guest houses, servants quarters, mother-in-law's quarters, cabanas, guest suites, and the like. e. All new residential zoning located within Districts, Subdistricts and Overlays identified above that are subject to this Density Rating System shall be consistent with this Density Rating System, except as provided in: all Policy 5.1 of the Future Land Use Element;. .:. all The Urban-Mixed Use District for the "vested" Port of the Islands development~ .:. all The Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict~.:. al1 The Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict. 5) The Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict 6) Livingston/Radio Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict 7) Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict A~. Density Bonuses:No change to text, page 36] I!!. Conversion of Commercial Zoning Bonus:Revised text, page 37] If the f! project includes the conversion of commercial zoning that has been found to be "Consistent By Policy" through the Collier County Zoning Re-eva1uation Program (Ordinance No. 90-23), then is not consistent \'1ith any Subdistrict allowing commercial uses, a bonus of up to 16 dwelling units per acre may be added for every one ill acre of commercial zoning that wlH€h is converted to residential zoning. These bonus dwelling units may be distributed over the entire project. The project must be compatible with surrounding land uses. Words underlined are added; words struok through are deleted. 25 Indicates break in text *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***** *** 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 831 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Future Land Use Element As Adopted by BCC 2-2.07 Proximity to Mixed Use Activity Center or Interchange Activity Center: Re- numbered, page 37] Affordable-workforce Housing Bonus:Revised text, page 37] As used in this density bonus provision. the term "affordable" shall be as defined in Chapter 420.9071. F.S. To encourage the provision of affordable-workforce housing within certain Districts and Subdistricts in the Urban Designated Area, a maximum of up to 8 residential units per gross acre may be added to the base density if the project meets the definitions and requirements of the Affordable::: workforce Housing Density Bonus Ordinance (Section ~ 2.06.00 of the Land Development Code, Ordinance #91 102 04-41, as amended. adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October W ~, +99-l- 2004). and if the affordable-workforce housing units are targeted for families earning no greater than 150% of the median income for Collier County. In the Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict, proiects utilizing the Affordable-workforce Housing Density Bonus projects must provide appropriate mitigation consistent with Objective 12.1 and subsequent policies, as applicable, of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. Also, for those specific properties identified within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, this density bonus is allowed but only to a maximum of 6 residential units per gross acre. Additionally, the Affordable-workforce Housing Density Bonus may be utilized within the Agricultural/Rural designation, as provided for in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay, subject to the aforementioned Section 2.06.00 ~ of the Land Development Code. 4Q. Residential In-fill:Re- numbered, pages 37, 37.1] Roadway Access:Re- numbered, page 37.1] f. Transfer of Development Rights Bonus: [Re-numbered, revised text, page 38] To encourage preservation/conservation of natural resources, density transfers are permitted as follows: a) From Urban designated areas into \Vithin that portion of the Urban designated area subject to this Density Rating System, density may be increased above and beyond the deflsity otherwise allowed by the Density Rating System in accordance with the Transfer of Development Rights (TOR) provision contained in Section 2.2.24.11 2.03.07 of the Land Development Code.. adopted by Ordinance No. #91 10204-41, as amended, on June 22. 2004 and effective October W ~, +99-l- 2004., us amEmded For proiects utilizing this TOR process. density may be increased above and beyond the density otherwise allowed by the Density Rating System.-;- b) From Sending Lands in conjunction with qualified infill development c) From Sending Lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary into lands designated Urban Residential Fringe, at a maximum density increase of one (1) unit per gross acre. Words underlined are added; words struok through are deleted. 26 Indicates break in text *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***** *** 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 832 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Future Land Use Element As Adopted by BCC 2.2-07 In no case shall density be transferred into the Coastal High Hazard Area from outside the Coastal High Hazard Area. Lands lying seaward of the Coastal High Hazard Boundary, identified on the Future Land Use Map, are 'tVithin the Coastal High Hazard r.rea. g. Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA) Bonus: [Re- numbered text, Revised title, page 38] IJ~.Density Reduction:No changes to text, page 38] I!. Traffic Congestion Area:Revised text, pages 38, 38.1] If the project lies is within the Traffic Congestion Area, an area identified as subiect to long range traffic congestion, + one dwelling unit per gross acre would be subtracted from the eligible base density of four dwelling units per acre. The Traffic Congestion Boundary is shown on the Future Land Use Map and consists of the western coastal Urban Designated Area seaward of a boundary marked by Airport-Pulling Road (including an extension north to the Lee County boundary), Davis Boulevard, County Barn Road, and Rattlesnake Hammock Road consistent with the Mixed Use Activity Center's residential density band located at the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and County Road 951 (including an extension to the east). Properties adjacent to the Traffic Congestion Area shall be considered part of the Traffic Congestion Area if their only access is to a road forming the boundary of the Area; however, if that property also has an access point to a road not forming the boundary of the Traffic Congestion Area it will not be subject to the density reduction. Futhermore, the density reduction shall not apply to developments located within the South U.S. 41 TCEA (as identified within Transportation Element, Map TR-4, and Transportation Element, Policies 5.5 and 5.6, and FLUE Policy 2.4) that obtain an exception from concurrency requirements for transportation, pursuant to the certification process described in Transportation Element Policy 5.6, and that include affordable housing (as per Section 2.7.7 of the Collier County Land Development Code, as amended) as part of the plan of development. This reduction shall likewise not be applied to developments within the Northwest and East-Central TCMAs that meet the requirements of FLUE Policies 6.1 through 6.5, and Transportation Element, Policies 5.7 and 5. 8, and that include Affordable Housing (as per Section 2.7.7 of the Collier County Land Development Code, as amended) as part of the plan of development. Density Conditions:No changes to text, page 38.1] I!. Maximum Density:Revised text, page 38.1] The maximum allowed permitted density shall not exceed 16 residential dwelling units per gross acre within the Urban designated area, except when utilizing the Words underlined are added; words Gtruok through are deleted. Indicates break in text *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***** *** 27 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 833 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Future Land Use Element As Adopted by BCC 2.2-07 Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) provision contained in Section 2.2.21.10 2.03.07 of the Land Development Code adopted by Ordinance No. #91 102 04- 41, as amended, on June 22, 2004 and effective October W lli, +99-l- 2004, as amended. d~. Density Blending:No changes to text, pages 39, 40] Be. Urban Commercial District:No changes to text, page 40] 1. Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict: [Revised text, pages 41, 41.1, 42-44] Mixed Use Activity Centers have been designated on the Future Land Use Map Series identified in the Future Land Use Element. The locations are based on intersections of major roads and on spacing criteria. When this Plan was originally adopted in 1989, there were 21 Activity Centers. There are now 19 Mixed Use Activity Centers, listed below, which comprise approximately 3,000 acres~ , this includes includiflg 3 Interchange Activity Centers (#4, 9, 10) which will be discussed separately under the Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict. Two Activity Centers" # 19 and 21" have been deleted as they are now within the incorporated City of Marco Island and replaced by tho land use desigflations identified in the Marco Island Master Plan afld FMtMre Land Use Map. 1 Immokalee Road and Airport-Pulling Road 2 US 41 and Immokalee Road 3 Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard 4 1-75 and Immoka1ee Road (Interchange Activity Center) 5 US 41 and Vanderbilt Beach Road 6 Davis Boulevard and Santa Barbara Boulevard 7 Rattlesnake-Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard 8 Airport-Pulling Road and Golden Gate Parkway 9 1-75 and Collier Boulevard and Davis Boulevard (Interchange Activity Center) 10 1-75 and Pine Ridge Road (Interchange Activity Center) 11 Vanderbilt Beach Road and Airport-Pulling Road 12 US 41 and Pine Ridge Road 13 Airport-Pulling Road and Pine Ridge Road 14 Goodlette-Frank Road and Golden Gate Parkway 15 Golden Gate Parkway and Coronado Boulevard 16 US 41 and Airport-Pulling Road 17 US 41 and Rattlesnake-Hammock Road 18 US 41 and Collier Boulevard 20 US 41 and Wiggins Pass Road The Mixed-Use Activity Center concept is designed to concentrate almost all new commercial zoning in locations where traffic impacts can readily be accommodated, to avoid strip and disorganized patterns of commercial development, and to create focal points within the community. Mixed Use Activity Centers are intended to be mixed-use in character. Further, they are generally intended to be developed at a human-scale, to be pedestrian-oriented, and to be interconnected with abutting proiects - whether Words underlined are added; words otruol< through are deleted. 28 Indicates break in text *** *** *** **1r *** *** *** *** ***** *** 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 834 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Future Land Use Element As Adopted by BCC 2- 2-07 commercial or residential. Street. pedestrian pathway and bike lane interconnections with adiacent abutting properties. where possible and practicable. are encouraged. l\dditionally, some commercial development is allowed outside of Mixed Use :\ctivity Centers in the PUD Neighborhood Village Center Subdistrict, Office and Infill Commercial Subdistrict, Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict, Traditional Neighborhood DesigR Subdistrict, Orange Blossom Mixed Use Subdistrict, GoodlettelPiRe Ridge Commercial Subdistrict, Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict, LivingstonlPine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict, HeRderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict, Li'.ingstoR RoadlEatomvood Lane Commercial Infill Subdistrict, LiviRgston Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict, Buckley Mixed Use SHbdistrict and the Bayshore/Gate\.vay Triangle Rede';elopment Overlay and by Policies 5.9,5.10, and 5.11 of the FHture Land Use ElemeRt. Mixed Use i\cti'.ity Centers are inteRded to be mixed use in character. Allowable land uses in Mixed Use Activity Centers include the full array of commercial uses. residential uses. institutional uses. hotel/motel uses at a maximum density of 26 units per acre. community facilities. and other land uses as generally allowed in the Urban designation. The actual mix of the various land uses ',llhicfl may include the full array of commercial uses, resideRtial uses, institutional uses, hotel/motel uscs at a density consisteRt with the Land Development Code shall be determined during the rezoning process based on consideration of the factors listed below. Except as restricted below under the provision for Master Planned Activity Centers. all Mixed Use Activity Centers may be developed with any of the land uses allowed within this Subdistrict. For residential-only development, if a project is located within the boundaries of a Mixed Use Activity Center which is not within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict or Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict, up to 16 residential units per gross acre may be permitted. If such a proiect is located within the boundaries of a Mixed Use Activity Center which is within the Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict. the eligible density shall be limited to four dwelling units per acre. except as allowed by the density rating system. If such a proiect is located within the boundaries of a Mixed Use Activity Center which is within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict. eligible density shall be as allowed by that Subdistrict. For a residential-only proiect located partially within and partially outside of an Activity Center. the density accumulated from the Activity Center portion of the proiect This density may be distributed throughout the project, including any portion located o\:ltside of the boundary of the Mixed Use Activity Center. Mixed-use developments - whether consisting of residential units located above commercial uses, in an attached building, or in a freestanding building - are allowed and encouraged within Mixed Use Activity Centers. Such mixed use projects are intended to be de'.eloped at a lmmaR scale, pcdestriaR oriented, and interconnected with adjacent projects whether commercial or residential. Street, pedestrian pathway and bike lane intcrconnectioRs '.vith adjacent properties, '",'here possible and practicable, arc encouraged. Density for such a proiect is calculated based upon the gross project acreage within the Activity Center. If such a project is located within the boundaries of a Mixed Use Activity Center which is not within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict and is Words underlined are added; words struok through are deleted. 29 Indicates break in text *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***** *** 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 835 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Future Land Use Element As Adopted by BCC 2-2-07 not within the Coastal High Hazard Area, the eligible density is sixteen dwelling units per acre. If such a project is located within the boundaries of a Mixed Use Activity Center that is not within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict but is within the Coastal High Hazard Area, the eligible density shall be limited to four dwelling units per acre. If such a project is located within the boundaries of a Mixed Use Activity Center which is within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, eligible density shall be as allowed by that Subdistrict. For a project located partially within and partially outside of an Activity Center. and the portion within an Activity Center is developed as mixed use. some of the density accumulated from the Activity Center portion of the project may be distributed to that portion of the project located outside of the Activity Center. In order to promote compact and walkable mixed use proiects. where the density from a mixed use project is distributed outside the Activity Center boundary: 1) the mixed use component of the project within the Activity Center shall include a minimum of thirty percent (30%) of the Activity Center-accumulated density; 2) the dwelling units distributed outside the Activity Center shall be located within one third (1/3) of a mile of the Activity Center boundary: and. 3) the portion of the project within the Activity Center shall be developed at a human scale. be pedestrian-oriented. and be interconnected with the remaining portion of the project with pedestrian and bicycle facilities. The factors to consider during review of a rezone petition for a project. or portion thereof. within an Activity Center. are as follows: a. Rezones v/ithin Mixed Use ,^..ctivity Ceflters are encouraged to be in the form of a Planned Unit Development. There shall be no minimum acreage limitation for such Planned Unit Developments except all requests for rezoning must meet the requirements for rezoning in the Land Development Code. b. The amount, type and location of existing zoned commercial land, and developed commercial uses, both within the Mixed Use Activity Center and within two road miles of the Mixed Use Activity Center;.:. c. Market demand and service area for the proposed commercial land uses to be used as a guide to explore the feasibility of the requested land uses-;-:. d. Existing patterns of land use within the Mixed Use Activity Center and within two radial miles-;-:. e. Adequacy of infrastructure capacity, particularly roads-;-:. t. Compatibility of the proposed development with, and adequacy of buffering for, adjoining properties-;-:. Natural or man-made constraints-;-:. h. Rezoning criteria identified in the Land Development Code-;-:. Words underlined are added; words struok through are deleted. 30 Indicates break in text *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***** *** 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 836 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Future Land Use Element As Adopted by BCC 2. 2-07 1. Conformance with Access Management Plan provisions for Mixed Use Activity Centers, as contained in the Land Development Codet.:. L Coordinated traffic flow on-site and off-site, as may be demonstrated by a Traffic Impact Analysis, and a site plan/master plan indicating on-site traffic movements, access point locations and type, median opening locations and type on the abutting roadway(s), location of traffic signals on the abutting roadway(s), and internal and external vehicular and pedestrian interconnectionst.:. k. Interconnection(s) for pedestrians, bicycles and motor vehicles with existing and future adjacent abutting projectst.:. 1.:. Conformance with the architectural design standards as identified in the Land Development Code. The approximate boundaries of Mixed Use Activity Centers have been delineated on the maps located at the end of this section as part of the Future Land Use Map Series. These map boundaries are the actuaL fixed boundaries and cannot be adiusted without a comprehensive plan amendment, except as provided below for Master Planned Activity Centers of Mixed Use Activity Centers listed belo'l; by Activity Center and location are specifically defined on the maps and shall be considered to delineate the bOl:Uldaries for those Mixed Use Activity Centers. 1 Immokalee Road and ,\irport Road 6 Da'lis Bouleyard and Saflta Barbara Bouleyard 8 ,^..irport Road and Golden Gate Parkway 11 Vanderbilt Beach Road and '^Lirport Road 12 US 11 and Pine Ridge Road 13 '^Lirport Road and Pine Ridge Road 15 Golden Gate Park'l/ay and Coronado Boulevard 16 US 11 and ,\irport Road 17 US 41 and Rattlesnake Hammock Road 18 US 11 and Isles of Capri Road 20 US 41 aad \Xliggins Pass Road The mix of uses in all of these speeifically designated, except for #6 at Davis Bouleyard and Santa Barbara Bou1e'lard, illlll range from 80 to 100% commercially zoned and/or dt:weloped property. Activity Center #6 is approximately 60% commercially zoned and/or developed. For purposes of these specifically designated ,\ctivity Centers, the entire ActiYity Center is eligible for up to 100%, or any combination thereof, of each of the follov;ing uses: commercial, residential and/or community facilities. Master Planned Activity Centers Any of the five Mixed Use Activity Centers listed below may be designated as ~ Master Planned Mixed Use Activity Centers. A Master Planned Mixed Use Activity Centers-are Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted. 31 Indicates break in text *** *** *** *** *** ' k** *** *** ***** *** 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 837 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Future Land Use Element As Adopted by BCC 2.2-07 is one these which hiwe has a unified plan of development in the form of a Planned Unit Development, Development of Regional Impact or an area-wide Development of Regional Impact. Property owners within such Mixed Use Activity Centers shall be required to utilize the Master Planned Mixed Use Activity Center process, as provided below. 2 US 41 and Immokalee Road 3 Immokalee Road and CR 951 Collier Boulevard 5 US 41 and Vanderbilt Beach Road 7 Rattlesnake-Hammock Road and CR 951 Collier Boulevard 14 Goodlette-Frank Road and Golden Gate Parkway In recognition of the benefit resulting from the coordination of planned land uses and coordinated access points to the public road network, Master Planned Activity Centers are encouraged through the allowance of flexibility in the boundaries, and thus mix and location of uses permitted within a designated Mixed Use Activity Center.:. atld may be permitted to modify the designated configuration. The boundaries of Master Planned Mixed Use Activity Centers depicted on the Future Land Use Map Series are understood to be flexible and subject to modification as provided for below during final site design; Hhowever, the approved acreage within amount of commercial development the reconfigured Activity Center shall not be exceedetl that within the existing Activity Center. The actual mix of land uses shall be determined using the criteria for other Mixed Use Activity Centers. All of the following criteria must be met for a project to qualify as a Master Planned Mixed Use Activity Center: 1. The applicant shall have unified control of the maJonty of a quadrant in a designated Activity Center. Majority of the quadrant shall be defined as at least 51 % of the privately owned land within any Activity Center quadrant. However, if a property owner has less than 51 % ownership within a quadrant, that property owner may still request a rezoning under the provisions of a Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict subject to the maximum acreage allowed in Paragraph 2 below. Property owners with less than 51 % ownership are encouraged to incorporate vehicular and pedestrian accesses with adjacent properties within the Activity Center. Any publicly owned land within the quadrant will be excluded from acreage calculations to determine unified control-;-.:. 2. The permitted allowable land uses for a Master Planned Mixed Use Activity Center shall be the same as for other designated Activity Centers; however, a Master Planned Mixed Use Activity Center encompassing the majority of the property in two or more quadrants shall be afforded the flexibility to redistribute a part or all of the allocation from one quadrant to another, to the extent of the unified control. The maximum amount of commercial uses allowed permitted at Activity Center # 3 (lmmokalee Road and Collier Boulevard) is 40 acres per quadrant for a total of 160 acres maximum in the entire Activity Center; the balance of the land area shall be limited to fef non-commercial uses as allowed in Mixed Use Activity Centers residential and/or community facility uses. The Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted. 32 Indicates break in text *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***** *** 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 838 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Future Land Use Element As Adopted by BCC 2-2-07 maximum amount of commercial uses allowed permitted at Activity Center #7 Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard) is 40 acres per quadrant, except that the northeast quadrant may have a total of 59 acres, for a total of 179 acres maximum in the entire Activity Center; the balance of the land area shall be limited to fef non-commercial uses as allowed in Mixed Use Activity Centers residential afld/or comml:lflity facility uses. With respect to the +/- 19 acres in the northeast quadrant of Activity Center #7, said acreage lying adjacent to the east of the Hammock Park Commerce Center PUD, commercial development (exclusive of the allowed "1/4 mile support medical uses") shall be limited to a total of 185,000 square feet of the following uses: personal indoor self-storage facilities - this use shall occupy no greater than 50% of the total (185,000) building square feet; offices for various contractorlbuilder construction trade specialists inclusive of the offices of related professional disciplines and services that typically serve those construction businesses or otherwise assist in facilitating elements of a building and related infrastructure, including but not limited to architects, engineers, land surveyors and attorneys - these offices of related professional disciplines and services shall occupy no greater than 50% of the total (185,000) building square feet; warehouse space for various contractorlbuilder construction trades occupants; mortgage and land title companies; related businesses including but not limited to lumber and other building materials dealers, paint, glass, and wallpaper stores, garden supply stores - all as accessory uses only, accessory to offices for various contractorlbuilder construction trade specialists or accessory to warehouse space for various contractorlbuilder construction trades occupants; management associations of various types of buildings or provision of services to buildings/properties; and, fitness centers. Activity Center #14 (Goodlette-Frank Road and Golden Gate Parkway) shall have a maximum of 45 acres for commercial use, the balance of the land uses shall be limited to fef non- commercial uses as allowed in Mixed Use Activity Centers. residential and/or community facility I:lses. i\ctivity Centers #2 and #5 have approximately 80% of the area zOfled or developed for commercial I:lses. For purposes of these t'.vo ctivity Centers, the efltire Activity Ceflter is eligible for up to 100%~ or any combination thereof, of the follO'.viflg uses: commercial, residential and/or commuflity facilities. 3. The location and configuration of all land uses within a Master Planned Mixed Yse Activity Center shall be compatible with and related to existing site Ffeatures, surrounding development, and existing natural and man made constraints. Commercial uses shall be oriented so as to provide coordinated and functional transportation access to major roadways serving the Activity Center, and functionally related or integrated with surrounding land uses and the planned transportation network-;--afld.:. 4. Adjacent properties within the Activity Center that are not under the unified control of the applicant shall be considered and appropriately incorporated (i.e. pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular interconnections) into the applicant's Master Plan. Words underlined are added; words Gtruok through are deleted. 33 Indicates break in text *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***** *** 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 839 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Future Land Use Element As Adopted by BCC 2.2-07 New Mixed Use Activity Centers may be proposed if all of the following criteria are met and an amendment is made to delineate the specific boundaries on the Future Land Use Map series for Mixed Use Activity Centers: lhe intersection around which the Mixed Use Activity Center is located consists of an arterial and collector road, or two arterial roads, based upon roadway classifications contained in the Transportation Traffic Circulation Element. lhe Mixed Use Activity Center is no closer than two miles from any existing Mixed Use Activity Center, as measured from the center point of the intersections around which the existing and proposed Mixed Use Activity Centers are located. Mmarket justification is provided demonstrating the need for a Mixed Use Activity Center at the proposed location. 2. Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict: [Revised text, pages 44, 45] Interchange Activity Centers have been designated on the Future Land Use Map at eaeh eHfte three of the County's four Interstate 75 interchanges and include numbers 4, 9 and 10: there is no Activity Center at the new I-75/Golden Gate Parkway interchange. The boundaries of these Interchange Activity Centers have been specifically defined on the maps located at the end of this Section as part of the Future Land Use Map Series. Any changes to the boundaries of these Interchange Activity Centers shall require an amendment to the Future Land Use Map Series. Interchange Activity Centers #4 (1-75 at Immoka1ee Road) and #10 (1-75 at Pine Ridge Road) allow for a the same mixture of land uses as allowed in the Mixed Use Activity Centers: additionally, ';<,hich may include 100% or any combination thereof, of each of the following uses: the full array of commercial uses, residential and non residential uses, institutional uses, hotel/motel uses at a density consistent 'l<,ith the Land Development Code,~ and Business Parks; and industrial uses~ as identified below, are allowed in the southwest and southeast quadrants of Interchange Activity Center #4. No industrial uses shall be allowed in Interchange Activity Center #10. The actual mix of uses shall be determined during the rezoning process based on consideration of the same factors listed under the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict. Interchange Activity Center # 9 (1-75 at Collier Boulevard) shall be is subject to the requirement of the development of an Interchange Master Plan (IMP), which was~ IMP is intended to create an enhanced "gate'Nay" to Naples. The IMP process shall be initiated by the property owners and/or their representatives by meeting 'Nith the County planning staff within 60 days of the adoption of this Growth Management Plan amendment and a finding of compliance from the Department of Community "^1ffairs. The purpose of the meeting v..ill be to establish a mutually acceptable vision statement for Activity Center it 9. The Interchange Master Plan shall be adopted by Resolution by the Board of County Commissioners, and to the implementing provisions adopted into the Words underlined are added; words Gtruok through are deleted. 34 Indicates break in text *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***** *** 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 840 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Future Land Use Element As Adopted by BCC 2-2-07 Land Development Code. All rezones thereafter shall meet the intent of the VISIOn statement. Subsequent to the development of the vision statement, All new projects within Activity Center #9 are encouraged to have a unified plan of development in the form of a Planned Unit Development. The mixture of uses allowed in Interchange Activity Center # 9 shall include all land uses allowed in the Mixed Use Activity Centers; additionally. the full array of commercial uses; residential and non residential uses; institutional uses; Business Park; hotel/moteluses at a density consistent '.vith the Land Development Code; industrial uses shall be allowed in the northeast, southv;est and southeast quadrants of I- 75 and Collier Boulevard. and in the southwest quadrant of Collier and Davis Boulevards. The mix and intensity of land uses shall meet the intent of the vision statement and be defined during the rezoning process. The above allowed uses notwithstanding, entire Interchange ,\ctivity Center is eligible for up to 100% of the entire acreage to be de'leloped for any of the uses referenced above, except commercial zoning the maximum amount of commercial acreage shall not exceed 55% of the total acreage (632.5 ac.) of Interchange Activity Center # 9. The factors to consider during H)'/iev.' of a rezone petition shall be compliaflce with the 'Iision statement and those included for the Mixed Use !hlli ,^..ctivity Center. The actual mix of uses shall be determined during the rezoning process based on consideration of the same factors listed under the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict, and based on the adopted IMP. For residential-only development, if a project is located within the boundaries of an Interchange Activity Center, which is not within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict and flOt within tbe Estates Designatiofl, up to 16 residential units per gross acre may be allowed permitted. If such a proiect is located within the boundaries of an Interchange Activity Center which is within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict. eligible density shall be as allowed by that Subdistrict. For a residential-only proiect located partially within and partially outside of an Activity Center. the density accumulated from the Activity Center portion of the proiect Thi~; density may be distributed throughout the project, including any portion located outside of the boundary of the Activity Center. Mixed-use developments - whether consisting of residential units located above commercial uses. in an attached building. or in a freestanding building - are allowed and encouraged within Interchange Activity Centers. Such mixed-use proiects are intended to be developed at a human-scale. pedestrian-oriented. and interconnected with adiacent proiects - whether commercial or residential. Street. pedestrian pathway and bike lane interconnections with adiacent properties. where possible and practicable. are encouraged. Density for such a proiect is calculated based upon the gross proiect acreage within the Activity Center. If such a proiect is located within the boundaries of an Interchange Activity Center which is not within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, the eligible density is sixteen dwelling units per acre. If such a project is located within the boundaries of a Mixed Use Activity Center which is within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict. eligible density shall be as allowed by that Subdistrict. For a proiect located partially within and partially outside of an Activity Center. and the portion within Words underlined are added; words struok through are deleted. 35 1r *** *** Indicates break in text *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***** *** 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 841 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Future Land Use Element As Adopted by BCC 2-2-07 an Activity Center is developed as mixed use. the density accumulated from the Activity Center portion of the proiect shall not be distributed outside of the Activity Center. Based on the unique location and function of Interchange Activity Centers, some Industrial land uses - those that serve regional markets and derive specific benefit when located in the Interchange Activity Centers :. shall be allowed in the Activity Center quadrants previously identified. These uses shall be limited to: manufacturing. warehousing. storage. and distribution. , provided During the rezone process. each such use shall be is reviewed to determine if it will and found to be compatible with existing and approved land uses. Industrial uses shall be limited to: manufacturing, '.varehousing, storage, and distribution. The following conditions shall be required to ensure compatibility of Industrial land uses with other commercial, residential and/or institl:ltional land uses allowed in the Interchange Activity Centers; to maintain the appearance of these Interchange Activity Centers as gateways to the community; and to mitigate any adverse impacts caused by noise, glare or fumes to the adjacent property owners. The Planned Unit Development and/or rezoning ordinance shall contain specific language regarding the permitted Industrial land uses, compatibility requirements, and development standards consistent with the following conditions. Site:.specific development details will be reviewed during the Site Development Plan review process. a. Landscaping, buffering and/or berming shall be installed along the Interstate; b. Fencing shall be wooden or masonry; c. Wholesale and storage uses shall not be permitted immediately adjacent to the right-of-way of the Interstate; d. Central water and sewage systems shall be required; e. Ingress and egress shall be consistent with State Access Management Plans, as applicable; L. No direct access to the Interstate right-of-way shall be permitted; Joint access and frontage roads shall be established when frontage is not adequate to meet the access spacing requirements of the Access Control Policy, Activity Center Access Management Plan provisions, or State Access Management Plans, as applicable; h. Access points and median openings shall be designed to provide adequate turning radii to accommodate truck traffic and to minimize the need for U-turn movements; h The developer shall be responsible to provide all necessary traffic improvements to include traffic signals, turn lanes, deceleration lanes, and other improvements deemed necessary - as determined through the rezoning process; and. h A maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for the designated Industrial land uses component of the projects shall be established at 0.45. 3. LivingstonlPine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict: [Revised text, page 46] a. Southeast Quadrant Words underlined are added; words e:truol< through are deleted. 36 Indicates break in text *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***** *** 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 842 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Future Land Use Element As Adopted by BCC 2.2.07 If permitted by the South Florida Water Management District, emergency access to the North Naples Fire District fire station located immediately east of the property will be provided improving response times to all properties located south along Livingston Road. Interconnection to adjacent abutting properties immediately to the South and immediately to the East will be studied and provided if deemed feasible, as a part of the rezoning action relating to the subject property. Building height is limited to one story with a 35 foot maximum for all retail and general commercial uses. General and medical office uses are limited to three stories with a 50 foot maximum height. Any project developed in this Quadrant may be comprised of any combination of retail commercial and/or office uses, provided that the total square footage does not exceed 125,000 square feet. A minimum 50-foot buffer of existing native vegetation will be preserved along all project boundaries located adjacent to abutting areas zoned agricultural. b. Northwest Quadrant The feasibility of interconnections to the adjacent abutting properties to the North and West will be considered and, if deemed feasible, will be required during the rezoning of the subject property. 4. Business Park Subdistrict: [No change to text, page 46] s. Research and Technology Park Subdistrict: [No change to text, page 46] 6.Livingston RoadlEatonwood Lane Commercial Infill Subdistrict: change to text, page 48] No 7. Livingston Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict: [No change to text, page 48] 8.Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict: 48, 48.1] Relocated text, Revised text, pages The purpose of this Subdistrict is to encourage the development and re-development of commercially zoned properties with a mix of residential and commercial uses. The residential uses may be located above commercial uses, in an attached building, or in a freestanding building. Such mixed-use projects are intended to be developed at a human- scale, pedestrian-oriented, and interconnected with adjacent abutting projects - whether commercial or residential. 'Nithifl one year of the effective date of this Subdistrict, the Land Developmeflt Code shall be amended, as necessary, to implement developing pursuant to the regulation governing this Subdistrict. This Subdistrict is allowed in the Urban Commercial District subiect to the standards and criteria set forth under the Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict in the Urban Mixed Use District. Projects utilizing this Subdistrict shall comply with the follo'.viflg standards and criteria: Words underlined are added; words GtrlJok through are deleted. 37 Indicates break in text *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***** *** 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 843 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Future Land Use Element As Adopted by BCC 2-2-07 1. This Subdistrict is applicable to the C 1 through C 3 zoning districts, and to commercial PUDs and the commercial component of mixed use PUDs where those commercial uses are comparable to those found in the C 1 through C 3 zoning districts. 2. Commercial Hses and de',elopment standards shall be in accordance '.vith tae commercial zoning district on the sHbject property. 3. Residential density is calculated based upon the gross commercial project acreage. For property in the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, density shall be as limited by that Subdistrict. For property not ',vithin the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict but \vithin the Coastal High Hazard ,^~rea, density saall be limited to four dwelling Hnits per acre. For property not within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict and not within the Coastal High Hazard ,^..rea, density shall be limited to sixteen dV/elling units per acre. 4. In the case of residential I:lses located 'Ilithin a building attached to a commercial building or in the case of a freestanding residential building, building square feet and acreage de','oted to residential uses shall not exceed se'/enty percent (70%) of the gross bl:lilding sqHare footage and acreage of the project. 5. Street, pedestrian pathway and bike lane interconnections with adjacent properties, where possible and practicable, are encouraged. 9.Livingston Road/V eterans Subdistrict: Memorial Boulevard Commercial Infill No changes to text, page 48.1] 10. LiviagsteB!Radio Read CeIHmeFeial Iafill SubdistFiet: [Relocated text, pages 48.1, 48.2] This SHbdistrict consists of .-'-5.0 acres located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Livingston Road and Radio Road. This Subdistrict allo,;,'s for those permitted and conditional uses set forth in Commercial Intermediate Zoning District (C 3) of the Collier County Land Development Code, Ordinance 91 102, in effect as of the effective date of adoption of this Subdistrict. Adopted October 26, 2004 by Ordinance No. 2004 71) Howc'/er, the follov/ing conditional uses shall not be permitted: 1. ;\musements and recreation services (Groups 7911, 7922 community theaters only, 7933, 7993, 7999 boat r~ntal, miniatl:lre golf course, bicycle and moped rental, rental of beach chairs and accessories only.) 2. Homeless shelters, as defined by the Land Development Code. 3. Social Services (8322 83990) Words underlined are added; words struok through are deleted. 38 Indicates break in text *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***** *** 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 844 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Future Land Use Element As Adopted by BCC 2- 2.07 4. Soup kitchens, as defined by the Lund Development Code. To encourage mixed use projects, this Subdistrict also permits residential development, hen located in a mixed use building (residential uses over commercial uses). Such residential development is allowed at a maxiffil:lm density of 16 d'l/elling units per acre; the gross acreage of the project is used in calculating residential density. The purpose of this Sl:lbdistrict is to provide services, iRcluding retail uses, to surrounding resideRtial areas '.vithin a convenient travel distaFlce to the subject property. These uses arc not an entitlement, nor is the maximum density for residential uses in a mixed use building. Such I:lses, and residential density, will be further eyaluated at the time of rezoning approval to insmc appropriateness in relation to surrounding properties. The maximum development intensity a-llO'.ved is 50,000 square feet of building area for commercial uses with a maximum height of three (3) stories, not to exceed 35 feet. Ho\vever, for mixed use buildings those contaiRing residential uses over commercial uses the maximum height is four ('1) stories, not to exceed 45 feet. Access to the property 'IIi thin the Subdistrict may be permitted from Radio Road, Market ,A1 venue and Livingston Road. ,A1ny access to Livingston Road shall be limited to right in, right out access. Further, access shall be consistent with the Collier County Access Management Policy in effect at the time of either rezoning or SDP application, '.vhichever policy is the more restrictive. 16 H. Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict [Relocated, Renumber, revise text - 5th paragraph, pages 48.2, 48.3] d. Parcel 2 At the time of rezoning of Parcel 2, the developer shall provide restrictions and standards to insure that uses and hours of operation are compatible with surrounding land uses. Permitted uses such as assisted living facilities, independent living facilities for persons over the age of 55, continuing care retirement communities, and nursing homes, shall be restricted to a maximum of 200 units and a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.6. The developer of Parcel 2 shall provide a landscape buffer along the eastern property line, adjuceRt to abutting the Wilshire Lakes PUD, at a minimum width of thirty (30) feet. At the time of rezoning, the developer shall incorporate a detailed landscape plan for that portion of the property fronting Vanderbilt Beach Road as well as that portion along the eastern property line, adjacent to abutting: the Wilshire Lakes PUD. 10. GoodlettelPine Ridee Commercial Infill Subdistrict: Relocated from page 27 to after page 48.3, renumbered, revised text] Words underlined are added; words struol< through are deleted. 39 Indicates break in text *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***** *** 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 845 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Future Land Use Element As Adopted by BCC 2. 2-07 This Ssubdistrict consists of 31 acres and is located at the northeast quadrant of two maior arterial roadways. Pine Ridge Road and Goodlette-Frank Road. In addition to uses generally allowed in the Urban designation. the intent of the Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict is to provide shopping. personal services and employment for the surrounding residential areas within a convenient travel distance. The Subdistrict is intended to be compatible with the neighboring Pine Ridge Middle School and nearby residential development and therefore. emphasis will be placed on common building architecture. signage. landscape design and site accessibility for pedestrians and bicyclists. as well as motor vehicles. Access to the Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict may feature a signalized traffic access point on Goodlette-Frank Road. which may provide for access to the neighboring Pine Ridge Middle School. Other site access locations will be designed consistent with the Collier County access management criteria. Development intensity within the Subdistrict will be limited to single-story retail commercial uses. while professional or medical related offices. including financial institutions. may occur in three-story buildings. A maximum of 275.000 square feet of gross leasable area for retail commercial and office and financial institution development may occur within this Subdistrict. Retail commercial uses shall be limited to a maximum of 125.000 square feet of gross leasable area on the south +1- 23 acres. No individual retail commercial use may exceed 65.000 square feet of gross leasable area. Unless otherwise required by the South Florida Water Management District. the .87 +1- acre wetland area located on the northeastern portion of the site will be preserved. D. Urban - Industrial District: [Remove hyphen from title, no changes to text, page 51] 1. Business Park Subdistrict: [No change to text, page 51] 2. Research and Technology Park Subdistrict: [No change to text, page 51] II. AGRICULTURALIRURAL DESIGNATION: [No change to text, page 52] A. AgriculturaVRural- Mixed Use District: [Remove hyphen from title, Relocate text of sub-paragraph g., pages 53, 54] g. ExistiB.g UB.its approved for the Fiddler's Creek DRI may be realloeated to those parts of Sections 18 and 19, TO';/nship 51 South, Range 27 East added to Fiddler's Creek DRI together 'llith part of Section 29, Tov/Rship 51 South, Range 27 East, at a density greater than 1 unit per 5 gross acres provided that no nC'N units are added to the 6,000 previously approved units, '.yhich results in a gross demsity of 1.6 units per acre for the Fiddler's Creek DRI; and further provided that no residential UB.its shall be located OR that part of Section 29 'Nithin the Fiddler's Creek DRI; and further provided that South Florida \Vater ManagemeRt District Words underlined are added; words struok through are deleted. 40 Indicates break in text *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***** *** 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 846 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Future Land Use Element As Adopted by BCC 2-2-07 jurisdictional v/etlands impacted by the DRI in said Sections do not exceed 10 1.Rural Commercial Subdistrict:Revised text - paragraph e., page 54] e. The project is located on an arterial or collector roadway as identified in the Traffic Circldation Transportation Element; and B. Rural Fringe Mixed Use District: [No changes to text, page 54] 1. Transfer of Development Rights (TDR), and Sending, Neutral, and Receiving Designations: [No changes to text, page 55] A)Receiving Lands:Revised text, page 58, 59] 5. Allowable Uses: u) Travel trailer recreational vehicle parks, provided the following criteria are met: 1) The subject site is adjacent to abutting an existing travel trailer recreational vehicle park site; and, 2) The subject site is no greater than 100% the size of the existing adjacent abutting park site. 7. Open Space and Native Vegetation Preservation Requirements: a) Usable Open Space: Within Receiving Lands projects greater than 40 acres in size shall provide a minimum of 70% usable open space. Usable Open Space includes active or passive recreation areas such as parks, playgrounds, golf courses, waterways, lakes, nature trails, and other similar open spaces. Usable Open Space shall also include areas set aside for conservation or preservation of native vegetation and lawn, yard and landscape areas. Open water beyond the perimeter of the site, street right- of-way, except where dedicated or donated for public uses, driveways, off- street parking and loading areas, shall not be counted towards required Usable Open Space. B)Neutral Lands:Relocated text, new subparagraph s), pages 59, 60] s) Existing units approved for the Fiddler's Creek DRI may be reallocated to those parts of Sections 18 and 19, Township 51 South, Range 27 East added to Fiddler's Creek DRI together with part of Section 29, Township 51 South, Range 27 East, at a density greater than 1 unit per 5 gross acres provided that no new units are added to the 6,000 previously approved units, which results in a gross density of 1.6 units per acre for the Fiddler's Creek DR!: and further provided that no Words underlined are added; words Gtruok through are deleted. 41 Indicates break in text *** *** *** *** 1r** *** *** *** ***** *** 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 847 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Future Land Use Element As Adopted by BCC 2-2-07 residential units shall be located on that part of Section 29 within the Fiddler's Creek DR!: and further provided that South Florida Water Management District iurisdictional wetlands impacted by the DRI in said Sections do not exceed 10 acres. C)Sending Lands:No changes to text, pages 62, 63, 64] D)Additional TDR Provisions:Revised text, first paragraph, page 65] Within ono year of adoption of this plan amondment, Collier County will amoRd has amended its land development regulations to adopt a formal process for authorizing and tracking the Transfer of Development Rights. This process will include~ , at a minimum the following provisions: 2. ButTers Adjacent to Major Public Rights-of-way: [No changes to text, page 65] 3. C) Rural Villages: [Revised text, pages 66, 67, 68, 69] Rural Village Sizes and Density: 3. Density shall be achieved as follows: c) Additional density between the minimum and maximum amounts established herein may be achieved through any of the following, either individually or in combination: 1) Additional TDR Credits. 2) TDR Bonus Credits. 3) A 0.5 unit bonus for each unit that is provided for lower income residents and for entry level and workforce buyers. 4) A density bonus of no more than 10% of the maximum density per acre allowed for each additional acre of native vegetation preserved exceeding the minimum preservation requirements set forth in Policy 6.1.2 of the CCME. 5) A density bonus of no more than 10% of the maximum density per acre as provided in Policy 6.2.5(6) b.:. of the CCME. G) As part of the development of Rural Village provisions, land development regulations shall identify specific design and development standards for residential, commercial and other uses. These standards shall protect and promote a Rural Village character and shall include requirements for parks, greens, squares, and other public places. In addition to the public spaces required as a part of a Village Center or Neighborhood Center. Rural Villages shall incorporate a Village Park and neighborhood parks. In addition, the following shall be addressed: 1. Rural Village, Village Center and neighborhood design guidelines and development standards. Interconnection between the Rural Village and adjacoRt abutting developments shall be encouraged. Words underlined are added; words Etruok through are deleted. 42 Indicates break in text *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***** *** 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 848 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Future Land Use Element As Adopted by BCC 2-2-07 2. Specific allocations for land uses including residential, commercial and other non-residential uses within Rural Villages, shall include, but are not limited to: A mixture of housing types, including single-family attached and detached, as well as multi-family. Proiects providing affordable- workforce housing as required in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Overlay contained in the Collier County Land Development Code Housing that is provided for lO';ler income residents and for entry level and workforce buyers shall receive a credit of 0.5 units for each unit constructed. Collier County shall develop, as part of the Rural Village Overlay, a methodology for determining the rental and fee-simple market rates that will qualify for such a credit, and a system for tracking such credits. 4. Exemptions from the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Development Standards: [No changes to text, pages 69,70] c. Rural- Industrial District: [Remove hyphen from title, revise text, page 70] The Rural - Industrial District, which encompasses approximately 900 acres of existing industrial areas outside of Urban designated areas, is intended, and shall be reserved, for industrial type uses, subject to the Interim Dcyelopment Provisions. Besides basic Industrial uses, limited commercial uses are permitted. Retail commercial uses are prohibited, except as accessory to Industrial uses. The C-5 Commercial Zoning District on the perimeter of lands designated Rural - Industrial District, as of October 1997, shall be deemed consistent with this Land Use District. All industrial areas shall have direct access to a road classified as an arterial or collector in the Traffic Circulation Transportation Element, or access may be provided via a local road that does not service a predominately residential area. No new industrial land uses shall be permitted in the Area of Critical State Concern. For the purposes of interpreting this policy, oil and gas exploration, drilling, and production ("oil extraction and related processing") shall not be deemed to be industrial land uses and shall continue to be regulated by all applicable federal, state, and local laws. Intensities of use shall be those related to: D. Rural - Settlement Area District: [Remove hyphen from title, revise text, page 70] This District consists of Sections 13, 14, 23, 24, and a portion of 22, Township 48 South, Range 27 East (the former North Golden Gate Subdivision), which was zoned and platted between 1967 and 1970. In settlement of a lawsuit pertaining to the permitted uses of this property, this property has been "vested" for the types of land uses specified in that certain "PUD by Settlement" zoning granted by the County as referenced in that certain SETTLEMENT AND ZONING AGREEMENT dated the 27th day of January, 1986. This Settlement Area is encompassed by the commonly known as Orangetree PUD and Orange Blossom Ranch PUD. Refer to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan for allowable permitted uses and standards. Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted. 43 Indicates break in text *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***** *** 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 849 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Future Land Use Element As Adopted by BCC 2.2-07 III.ESTATES DESIGNATION:No changes to text, page 71] IV.CONSERVATION DESIGNATION:No changes to text, pages 71, 72] V. OVERLA YS AND SPECIAL FEATURES: [No changes to heading, page 73] A. Area of Critical State Concern Overlay: [Revised text, pages 73, 74, 75] The Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) was established by the 1974 Florida Legislature. The Critical Area is displayed on the Future Land Use Map as an overlay area. The Critical Area encompasses lands designated Conservation, Agricultural/Rural, Estates and Urban (Port of the Islands, Plantation Island and Copeland). The ACSC regulations notwithstanding. there is an existing Development Agreement between Port of the Islands. Inc. and the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs. approved in July 1985. which regulates land uses in the Port of the Islands Urban area: and. there is an Agreement between the Board of County Commissioners and the Florida Department of Community Affairs. approved in April 2005. pertaining to development in Plantation Island. Chokoloskee is excluded from the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern. All Development Orders within the Critical Area shall comply with Chapter 28-25, Florida Administrative Code, "Boundary and Regulations for the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern". Those regulations include the following: ... B. North Belle Meade Overlay: [No changes to text, pages 75, 76, 77,78,79,80] 1. IN GENERAL Planning Considerations d. Red Cockaded Woodpeckers (RCW) [Revised text, page 77] RCW nesting and foraging habitat has been mapped and used to delineate areas that are appropriately designated as Sending Lands shall be mapped and protected from land use activities 'lIithifl Sending Lands, and Section 24 designated Neutral Lands. ,'\lthough RC\V nesting and foraging habitat shall be mapped '.vithin all Sending areas withifl the NBM Oyerlay, this shall be accomplished by a study specific to Section 21 cOflducted by Collier COUflty v.ithifl ORe year of the effective date of the NBM Overlay. Within Section 24, the Neutral designation may be adjusted based upon the findings of the updated RC\V Restiflg and foragiflg habitat study. 3. RECEIVING AREAS [Revised text, page 78] Within the NBM Overlay, Receiving Areas are identified for clustering of residential dwelling units, central water and sewer service, and for the transfer of development rights and comprise :t 3,368 acres in the northern and northwestern portions of the NBM Overlay. The Receiving Areas are generally located in the Words underlined are added; words struok through are deleted. Indicates break in text *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***** *** 44 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 850 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Future Land Use Element As Adopted by BCC 2. 2-07 northern portion of NBM Overlay and are generally contiguous to Golden Gate Estates. Two sections are directly to the south of the AP AC Earth Mining Operation. The Receiving Area exhibits areas of less environmental sensitivity than other portions of the NBM Overlay, because of their proximity to Golden Gate Estates and prior clearing and disturbance to the land. Within the Receiving Area of the NBM Overlay, are located Sections 21, 28 and the west v.. of Sections 22 and 27, which have been largely assembled under one property ownership. These lands are located south of the existing AP AC earth mining operation and have been largely impacted by agricultural operations. The location of Sections 21 and 28 is just to the south and west of Wilson Boulevard located in the southern_portion of north Golden Gate Estates. Because an earth mining operation and asphalt plant uses have existed for many years in the area, and the surrounding lands in Sections 21, 28 and the western quarters of Sections 22 and 27 are reported to contain Florida Department of Transportation grade rock for road construction, these uses are encouraged to remain and expand. However, until June 19, 2005, mining operations and an asphalt plant may be expanded only to the western half of Section 21 and shall not generate truck traffic beyond average historic levels. If by June 19, 2005, an alignment has been selected, funding has been determined, and an accelerated construction schedule established by the Board and the mining operator for an east-west connection roadway from County Road 951 to the extension of Wilson Boulevard, mining operations and an asphalt plant may expand on Sections 21 and 28 and the western quarters of 22 and 27 as a permitted use. If no such designation has been made by June 19,2005, any mining operations or asphalt plant in these areas, other than continued operations on the western half of Section 21 at historic levels, shall be permitted only as a conditional use, unless the mine operator upon failure to attain Board selection of an alignment commits by June 19,2005 to construct a private haul road by June 19, ~ 2010 without the allocation of any public funds. The County's existing excavation and explosive regulations shall apply to all mining operations in these areas. s. NEUTRAL LANDS Within the NBM Overlay there are :t 1,280 acres of land that are identified as Neutral Areas. The Neutral Areas consist of two Y2 sections located at the northeast corner of this Overlay and Section 24 located in the northwest portion of this Overlay. The preservation standards for Neutral Lands shall be those contained in CCME Policy 6.1.2 for Neutral Lands. The County has performed an RCW study for Section 24 and determined the appropriate designation is Neutral. The following additional requirements and limitations shall apply to Section 24. -; if the results of the study warrast, the Plan '.'lill be amended. a. Prior to site development. a survey to identify RCW cavity trees shall be required. b. The retained native vegetation. as required by CCME Policy 6.1.2. shall be managed for the red-cockaded woodpecker where the vegetation is suitable RCW habitat. Mechanical means to manage the understory will be allowed. Words underlined are added; words struok throLlgh are deleted. 45 Indicates break in text *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***** *** 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 851 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Future Land Use Element As Adopted by BCC 2.2-07 c. Allowable uses shall be limited to: 1) Single family residential dwelling units; 2) Multi-family residential structures, subject to the Residential Clustering provisions of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Neutral Lands, except that there is no minimum project size; 3) Agricultural uses consistent with Chapter 823.14(6), Florida Statutes Florida Right to Farm Act) 4) Habitat preservation and conservation uses; 5) Passive parks and other passive recreational uses; 6) Essential services necessary to serve allowable uses identified in Section c.1) through c.5) such as the following: private wells and septic tanks; utility lines; water pumping stations; and, 7) Essential services necessary to ensure public safety. d. Conditional Uses: The following uses are conditionally permitted subject to approval through a public hearing process: 1) Essential Services not identified above in c.6); 2) Commercial uses accessory to permitted uses c.3), c.4) and c.5), such as retail sales of produce accessory to farming, or a restaurant accessory to a park or preserve, so long as restrictions or limitations are imposed to insure the commercial use functions as an accessory. subordinate use; 3) Oil and gas field development and production. Where practicable, directional-drilling techniques and/or previously cleared or disturbed areas shall be utilized to minimize impacts to native habitats. e. Residential clustering is encouraged so as to allow preservation of the greatest amount of contiguous red-cockaded woodpecker habitat. If residential units are clustered, central water and sewer are required. If clustering is employed, the retained vegetation shall be placed in a preserve subject to the requirements of Policy 6.1.2 (3). f. Vegetation Retention requirements are identified in CCME Policy 6.1.2. c. Natural Resource Protection Area Overlay: [No changes to text, pages 80, 81] D. Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay: [Revised text, as noted below] Policy 1.15 [Revised text, page 85] Land becomes designated as an SRA upon the adoption of a resolution by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approving the petition by the property owner seeking such designation. Any change in the residential density or non-residential intensity of land use on a parcel of land located within a SRA shall be specified in the resolution reflecting the total number of transferable Credits assigned to the parcel of land. Density and intensity within the RLSA or within an SRA shall not be increased beyond the Baseline Standards except through the provisions of the Stewardship Credit System, the Affordable-workforce Housing Density Bonus as referenced in the Density Rating System of the FLUE, and the density and intensity blending provision of the Immokalee Area Master Plan. Words underlined are added; words Gtruok through are deleted. 46 Indicates break in text *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***** *** 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 852 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Future Land Use Element As Adopted by BCC 2- 2-07 Policy 4.7 Revised text, page 93] There are four specific forms of SRA permitted within the Overlay. These are Towns, Villages, Hamlets, and Compact Rural Development (CRD). The Characteristics of Towns, Villages, Hamlets, and CRD are set forth in Attachment C and are generally described in Policies 4.7.1, 4.7.2, 4.7.3 and 4.7.4. Collier County shall establish more specific regulations, guidelines and standards within the LDC Stewardship District to guide the design and development of SRAs to include innovative planning and development strategies as set forth in Chapter 163.3177 (11), F.S. and 01-5.006(5)(1). The size and base density of each form shall be consistent with the standards set forth on Attachment C. The maximum base residential density as set forth in Attachment C may only be exceeded through the density blending process as set forth in density and intensity blending provision of the Immokalee Area Master Plan or through the affordable-workforce housing density bonus as referenced in the Density Rating System of the Future Land Use Element. The base residential density is calculated by dividing the total number of residential units in a SRA by the overall area therein. The base residential density does not restrict net residential density of parcels within a SRA. The location, size and density of each SRA will be determined on an individual basis during the SRA designation review and approval process. Policy 4.7.1 Revised text, page 94] Towns are the largest and most diverse form of SRA, with a full range of housing types and mix of uses. Towns have urban level services and infrastructure whieh that support development that is compact, mixed use, human scale, and provides a balance of land uses to reduce automobile trips and increase livability. Towns shall be not less than 1,000 acres or more than 4,000 acres and are comprised of several villages andlor neighborhoods that have individual identity and character. Towns shall have a mixed-use town center that will serve as a focal point for community facilities and support services. Towns shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods. Towns shall have at least one community park with a minimum size of 200 square feet per dwelling unit in the Town. Towns shall also have parks or public green spaces within neighborhoods. Towns shall include both community and neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, in a ratio as provided in Policy 4.15. Towns may also include those compatible corporate office and light industrial uses a'i those permitted in the Business Park and Research and Technology Park Subdistricts of the FLUE. Towns shall be the preferred location for the full range of schools, and to the extent possible, schools and parks shall be located adjaceRt to abutting each other to allow for the sharing of recreational facilities. Design criteria for Towns shall be included in the LDC Stewardship District. Towns shall not be located within the ACSC. Policy 4.16 Revised text, pages 97 -98] Words underlined are added; words Gtruok through are deleted. 47 Indicates break in text *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***** *** 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 853 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Future Land Use Element As Adopted by BCC 2.2-07 A SRA shall have adequate infrastructure available to serve the proposed development, or such infrastructure must be provided concurrently with the demand. The level of infrastructure provided will depend on the form of SRA development, accepted civil engineering practices, and LDC requirements. The capacity of infrastructure necessary to serve the SRA at build-out must be demonstrated during the SRA designation process. Infrastructure to be analyzed includes transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, and solid waste. Transportation infrastructure is discussed in Policy 4.14. Centralized or decentralized community water and wastewater utilities are required in Towns, Villages, and those CRDs exceeding one hundred 0001 acres in size. and may be required in CRDs that are one hundred (100) acres or less in size. depending upon the permitted uses approved within the CRD. Centralized or decentralized community water and wastewater utilities shall be constructed, owned, operated and maintained by a private utility service, the developer, a Community Development District, the Immokalee Water Sewer Service District, Collier County, or other governmental entity. Innovative alternative water and wastewater treatment systems such as decentralized community treatment systems shall not be prohibited by this policy provided that they meet all applicable regulatory criteria. Individual potable water supply wells and septic systems, limited to a maximum of 100 acres of any Town, Village or CRD of 100 acres are permitted on an interim basis until services from a centralized/decentralized community system are available. Individual potable water supply wells and septic systems are permitted in Hamlets and may be permitted in CRDs of 100 acres or less in size. Policy 4.18 Revised text, page 98] The SRA will be planned and designed to be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County at the horizon year based on a costlbenefit fiscal impact analysis model acceptable to or as may be adopted by the County. The BCC may grant exceptions to this policy to accommodate affordable-workforce housing, as it deems appropriate. Techniques that may promote fiscal neutrality such as Community Development Districts, and other special districts, shall be encouraged. At a minimum, the analysis shall consider the following public facilities and services: transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste, parks, law enforcement, and schools. Development phasing, developer contributions and mitigation, and other public/private partnerships shall address any potential adverse impacts to adopted levels of service standards. Policy 5.6 [Revised text, page 102, 103, 104] 3.e. The County shall separate preserved wetlands from other land uses with appropriate buffering requirements. The County shall require a minimum 50-foot vegetated upland buffer adjacent to abutting a natural water body, and for other wetlands a minimum 25-foot vegetated upland buffer adjaceflt to abutting to the wetland. A structural buffer may be used in conjunction with a vegetative buffer that would reduce the vegetative buffer width by 50%. A structural buffer shall Words underlined are added; words Gtruol< through are deleted. 48 Indicates break in text *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***** *** 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 854 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Future Land Use Element As Adopted by BCC 2-2-07 be required adjacent to abutting wetlands where direct impacts are allows. Wetland buffers shall conform to the following standards: 3.f.ii. Loss of storage or conveyance volume resulting from direct impacts to wetlands shall be compensated for by providing an equal amount of storage or conveyance capacity on site and within or adjacent to abutting the impacted wetland. E.Airport Noise Area Overlay:No changes to text, page 105] F.Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay: 105 - 108] Revise text, pages 4. Properties with access to US-41 East are allowed a maximum density of 12 residential units per acre. In order to be eligible for this higher density, the project must be integrated into a mixed-use development with access to existing neighborhoods and adjoining commercial properties and comply with the standards identified in Paragraph #B. 9, below, except for mixed use projects developed within the "mini triangle" catalyst project site as identified on the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay Map. The "mini triangle" project site is eligible for the maximum density of 12 units per acre, with development standards as contained in the Gateway Triangle Mixed Use District zoning overlay, adopted February 28, 2006 (Ordinance No. 06-08), and amended December 14, 2006 (Ordinance No. 06-63) to be approved by the Board of County Commissioners at a later time. For projects that do not comply with the requirements for this density increase, their density is limited to that allowed by the Density Rating System and applicable FLUE Policies, except as may be limited by a future zoning overlay. 5. Properties with access to Bayshore Drive, as identified in the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Zoning Oyerlay District, are allowed a maximum density of 12 residential units per acre. In order to be eligible for this higher density, the property must meet the specific development standards that will apply to residential and mixed use de';elopment along the Bayshore Driye corridor, and proiect must be integrated into a mixed-use development with access to existing neighborhoods and adioining commercial properties and must comply with the standards identified in Paragraph #B.9, below. For projects that do not comply with the requirements for this density increase, their density is limited to that allowed by the Density Rating System and applicable FLUE Policies, except as may be limited by a future zoning overlay. 6. The Bayshore Driye Zoning Overlay will be developed and adopted into the Land Development Code in the present or next available amendment cycle. Expansion of existing commercial zoning bouRdaries aloRg Bayshore Drive within the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Zoning Overlay District will not be allowed until the zoning overlay is in place. Non commercially zoned properties within the Bayshore Driye Mixed Use ZORing Overlay District may be eligible for in fill, Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted. 49 Indicates break in text *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***** *** 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 855 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Future Land Use Element As Adopted by BCC 2-2-07 low intensity commercial development provided they meet the criteria listed below. a. If one parcel in the proposed project abuts commercial zoning on one side, the commercial zoning may be applied for the entire project site. The follov/ing requirements must be met: joint access and/or yehicular interconnection; pedestrian interconnection; and the entire project site must comply with DivisioR 2.8 of the Land De'.'elopment Code, as may be modified by the Bayshore Drive Mi){ed Use ZORing Overlay. b. The depth of a parcel for '/lhich commercial zoning is sOHght may exceed the depth of the abutting commercially zORed property. Adequate buffers must be provided bet'Neen the commercial uses and non commercial uses and non commercial zoning. c. The project must be compatible '.vith existing land uses and permitted future land uses on surrounding properties. fl. For pParcels currently within the boundaries of Mixed Use Activity Center # 16.. land uses will continue to be governed by the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict. A zoning overlay may be developed for these properties within the Mixed Use Activity Center to provide specific development standards. 1. Existing zoning districts for some properties within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay allow uses, densities and development standards that are inconsistent with the uses, densities and development standards allowed within this Overlay. These properties are allowed to develop and redevelop in accordance with their existing zoning until such time as a zoning overlay is adopted which may limit such uses, densities and development standards. 9~. To qualify for 12 dwelling units per acre, as provided for in paragraphs #4 and #5 above, mixed use projects within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay must comply with the following standards: a. Buildings containing only commercial uses are limited to a maXImum height of three stories. b. Buildings containing only residential uses are limited to a maXImum height of three stories except such buildings are allowed a maximum height of four stories if said residential buildings are located in close proximity to US-41. c. Buildings containing mixed use (residential uses over commercial uses) are limited to a maximum height of four stories. d. Hotels/motels will be limited to a maximum height of four stories. e. For purposes of this Overlay, each building story may be up to 14 feet ef building in height shall be considered one story for the first floor only. f. For mixed-use buildings, commercial uses are permitted on the first two stories only. g. Each building containing commercial uses only is limited to a maximum building footprint of 20,000 square feet gross floor area. h. One or more zoning overlays may be adopted which may include more restrictive standards than listed above in Paragraphs a -g. 92. For all properties outside of the Coastal High Hazard Area, any eligible density bonuses, as provided in the Density Rating System, are in addition to the eligible Words underlined are added; words Gtruok thr{)ugh are deleted. 50 Indicates break in text *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***** *** 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 856 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Future Land Use Element As Adopted by BCC 2-2-07 density provided herein. However. Pior properties within the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA), only the affordable-workforce housing density bonus, as provided in-the Density Rating System, is allowed in addition to the eligible density provided herein. For all properties, the maximum density allowed is that specified under Density Conditions in the Density Rating System. 1-10. A maximum of 388 dwelling units are permitted to be utilized in this Overlay for density bonuses.. as provided in paragraphs #4 and #5 above.. for that portion of the Overlay lying within the CHHA only. , except that 156 dV/elling units with direct access to US 41 East shall not be cOMRted towards this 388 d'.velling unit limitation. These This 388 dwelling units density bonus pool correspond~ with the number of dwelling units previously entitled to to be rezoned from the botanical gardens sites prior to their rezone in 2003 to establish the Naples Botanical Gardens PUD. The "mini triangle" catalyst proiect is not subject to this density bonus pool. , as provided for belm'.', resulting in a shift of d'.velling units within the CHH.\. There is no such deasity bonus limitation for that portioR of the Overlay lying outside of the CHH.\. 2-11. The Botanical Garden, Inc. properties located in Section 23, Township 50 South.. aad Range 25 East.. and shown on the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay Map, shall be limited to non-residential uses except for caretaker, dormitory, and other housing integrally related to the Botanical Garden or other institutional and/or recreational open space uses. 13. Within one year of the effecti'/e date of this amendment establishiRg the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay, the properties to be developed with a botanical garden or other non residential use, v..ill be rezoned from the present 388 residential zoning districts to a non residential zoning district(s). No portion of the dwelling unit density bonuses within the CHH;\. can be utilized until a corresponding number of d'llelling units has been rezoned from the botanical gardens site(s), as provided for above. G. Urban-Rural Fringe Transition Zone Overlay: [No changes to text, pages 108 - 110] H.Coastal Hie:h Hazard Area:New text, page 110] Policy 12.2.5 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) defines the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA). The CHHA boundary is depicted on the Future Land Use Map: all lands lying seaward of that boundary are within the CHHA. New rezones to permit mobile home development shall not be allowed within the CHHA. The Capital Improvement Element and Conservation and Coastal Management Element both contain policies pertaining to the expenditure of public funds for public facilities within the CHHA. ATTACHMENTS New text, page 110] There are three Attachments to the Future Land Use Element. all pertaining to the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) Overlay. as follows: Words underlined are added; words Gtruol< through are deleted. 51 Indicates break in text *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***** *** 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 857 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Future Land Use Element As Adopted by BCC 2-2-07 1. Attachment A, Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay, Stewardship Credit Worksheet. 2. Attachment B, Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay, Land Use Matrix. 3. Attachment C. Collier County RLSA Overlay, Stewardship Receiving Area Characteristics. FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES [Revise text, add four map names, and re- locate maps within FLUE text, page 111 and throughout FLUE document] Add the names of all maps presently located throughout the FLUE text, modify the order on this map list, and re-Iocate all FLUM maps presently interspersed throughout the text to follow the text so that the complete FLUM series is located together at the end of the FLUE document. Future Land Use Map Mixed Use & Interchange Activity Centers Maps Properties Consistent by Policy (5.9, 5.10, 5.11) Maps Collier County Natural Res8urees Wetlands Map Collier County Wellhead Protection Areas and Proposed Wellflelds and ASRs Map Rivers and Floodplains Map Estuarine Bays Map Soils Map Existine Commercial Mineral Extraction Sites Map Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay Map Stewardship Overlay Map Rural Lands Study Area Natural Resource Index Maps North Belle Meade Overlay Map Existing Public Educational Plants (Schools) and Ancillary Plants (Support Facilities) Map Existing Sites for Future Public Educational Plants and Ancillary Plants Map Plantation Island Urban Area Map Copeland Urban Area Map Railhead Scrub Preserve - Conservation Designation Map Lely Mitigation Park - Conservation Designation Map Urban - Rural Frinee Transition Zone Overlay Map Oranee Blossom Mixed Use Subdistrict Map Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict Map Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road Mixed Use Subdistrict GoodlettelPine Ridee Commercial Inflll Subdistrict Henderson Creek Mixed-Use Subdistrict Buckley Mixed-Use Subdistrict LivinestonlPine Ridee Commercial Inflll Subdistrict Vanderbilt Beach Road Neiehborhood Commercial Subdistrict Livineston RoadlEatonwood Lane Commercial Inflll Subdistrict Words underlined are added; words struok through are deleted. 52 It** *** *** *** *** *** *** Indicates break in text *** *** *** *1t. *** *** *** 'It.. ***** *** 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 858 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Future Land Use Element As Adopted by BCC 2-2-07 Livinl!ston Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict MAP/ATTACHMENT CHANGES: 1. Countywide Future Land Use Map: a) change Key Marco (Hoff's Island) from Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict to Incorporated Areas (gold color) - to reflect its annexation into City of Marco Island. Similarly, change the surrounding islands within the city limits of Marco Island to gold color. b) Change the property at southeast corner of US-41 East and Sandpiper Street (Sandpiper Village PUD aJk/a Ruffina) from Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict to Incorporated Areas - to reflect its annexation into the City of Naples. c) Change color of Rural Industrial Subdistrict to dark gray - to distinguish from the lighter gray denoting Urban Industrial. d) Add missing link of Livingston Road between Vanderbilt Beach Road and Immokalee Road. e) Delete "Naples-" in the label "Naples-Immokalee Road". f) New order of Subdistricts within Urban Mixed Use District: 1. Urban Residential Subdistrict 2. Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict 3. Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict 4. Business Park Subdistrict 5. Office and Infill Commercial Subdistrict 6. PUD Neighborhood Village Center Subdistrict 7. Residential Mixed Use Neighborhood Subdistrict 8. Orange Blossom Mixed Use Subdistrict 9. Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict 10. Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict 11. Research and Technology Park Subdistrict 12. Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict 13. Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict 14. Davis Boulevard/County Barn Road Mixed Use Subdistrict 15. Livingston/Radio Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict 16. Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict. g) New order of Subdistricts within Urban Commercial District: 1. Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict 2. Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict 3. LivingstonlPine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict 4. Business Park Subdistrict 5. Research and Technology Park Subdistrict 6. Livingston RoadlEatonwood Lane Commercial Infill Subdistrict 7. Livingston Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict 8. Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict Words underlined are added; words struok through are deleted. 53 Indicates break in text *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***** *** 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 859 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Future Land Use Element As Adopted by BCC 2-2.07 9. Livingston Road/Veteran Memorial Boulevard Commercial Infill Subdistrict 10. GoodlettelPine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict. j) Add "Lands" to "Neutral" in map label legend so as to read "Neutral Lands". k) Modify FLUM Note as follows: 3) The ,'\reas of Environmental Concern Overlay is a general representation of ';,'etlands. f4till The Conservation Designation is subject to change as areas are acquired and may include out-parcels. The Futme Land Use Map Series identifies areas proposed for public acquisition. ill The Future Land Use Map Series includes numerous maps in addition to this countywide Future Land Use Map; these are listed at the end of the Future Land Use Element text the follo.....ing: Mixed Use I Interchange i\.ctivity Centers; Properties Consistent By Policy and Collier County Wetlands. f6till Refer to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, and the Immokalee Area Master Plan and the Mareo Island Master Plan for Future Land Use Maps of those communities. 2. Map FLUE-9 (Zoning Consistent by Policy): Add to title: "Township 48, Range 25 & 26". 3. Map FLUE-I0 (Zoning Consistent by Policy): Add to title: "Township 49, Range 25 & 26". 4. Map FLUE-ll (Zoning Consistent by Policy): Add to title: "Township 50, Range 25 & 26". 5. Map FLUE-12 (Zoning Consistent by Policy): Add to title: "Township 51, Range 25 & 26". 6. Map FLUE-13 (Zoning Consistent by Policy): a) Add to title: "Township 52, Range 26 & 27". b) Revise to exclude properties within City of Marco Island. c) Correct San Marco Road from "S.R. 951" to c.R. 92". 7. Map FLUE-14 (Zoning Consistent by Policy): Add to title: "Immokalee Area". 8. North Belle Meade Overlay Map: a) Revise the legend to correct the spelling of "Receiving", and to add Sending" to "NRPA" so as to read "NRPA Sending". 9. Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay Map Words underlined are added; words struok through are deleted. 54 Indicates break in text *** *** *** *** *** *1r1r *** *** ***** *** 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 860 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Future Land Use Element As Adopted by BCC 2-2-07 a) Revise the boundary to exclude the property at southeast comer of US-4l East and Sandpiper Street (Sandpiper Village PUD alk/a Ruffina) as it has been annexed into the City of Naples. 10. Stewardship Overlay Map a) Add approved Stewardship Receiving Area (Ave Maria Town). 11. Attachment C, Collier County RLSA Overlay, Stewardship Receiving Area Characteristics a) Revise to add the word "workforce" in the third footnote so as to read Affordable-workforce Housing Density Bonus." EAR-FLUE Adopted by BCC G: Comprehensive/EAR Amendment Modifications/BCC Adoption Final dw/2-2-07 Words underlined are added; words struok through are deleted. 55 It* *** **. *.* *** Indicates break in text *** ... *** *** *** *** *"It. *** ***** *** 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 861 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) T 48 S T 47 S T 48 S T 49 S T 60 S T 61 S T 62 S T 53 Si ~ ~ <ii - >i ,. ; ~ i ~ .. g~ ~ > iih ~ ~ ~!;~ ~ ~i ~Ii! ~ 0 A ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~z ~.! ~g ~ .. 0: "::1 ~ ! a B ; ~~ ~~ !j~ .~ ~i .. .. ..... !. ~ - ~~ ~! 3~ .~ .S S 5 ! ~~ I ~ j ~ ; ~I ~; S~ Ii ~D..o~lo!:I'~rn.1 ~ I i n ; n n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i ! ~ ~.... 8 ~- " ,; ,; ~- ~11I ~ ~ n if H ~ . ~ ,~ :ii if I~ jY F ;~ i~it n " ! ~~H ~ g > , ~~ .~ ~~ ~~I ' , , , , , , , , , ' , I 1: ,\I , I , ~ , % ,~ , ,% ,n n II Ii II II II! I~ a! I! I~ a~ a~ i~ I~J 0: ~I i ~ ~5 5 E -n~~ ~ iB I~!1~,i~! z 3 i. ~U lal~~~i~ - -. 11 G _.~ ~ 3 \; ~ ~'.;;' i ~ ~ p ~ . . · . - ~ c .~ ~ i Ii! 8 ~ I ~ ! i - ~ ~Ii I ! ~"3 ~~ ~ 01 ~ ~ - !. ~ - i. I ! < . j!- i ~ -' ~ - ~i - g n Mh . G~ I h.~! h I ~ ; Ilh~ ;hhh ~ dliu I Ii ::!;;i1. g ~ . ~iii '~il~~; ~ ~ h~~i~ i~; :H~~~ q ! ~ i ~ 11 PU I~ d ~ n ml I ~~ ~ H ~, · 5 i 0 0 ~ ~ n h ... ~ . ~ l1li.. 0 I~ = ~ ~ nB 1I SE,,~ " II: II: i Ii i8- - - - -Ii ~ ~ ! i~ ~ ~ ~~ ~g i! - ~~! U ~hl8, , 8h~~i qi!i 1 ~ ~ . ~~ . . ~ ~ . I ;~ I II H lill i 1111I ... i. .D~ DIED l ILs ~ - @.I i 8 ~ 5" ~ ~ II " ~ , I n II I ! i I oS IIl.tsll I II: i 0 N 1 II: J II: I N II: II: II: CD N II: b I f.....- I/ i r" r-----.. co C> II: II: N II: N II: A. C II: ::I I~I! liji i~ ..I 1i!J U~1111ii g:. C)is N I II: l g 00 z< N i II: 0 i ... CD N II: i7 O~ ~ . 3~ 1' r~sl~ N j" II: L~ S ':9 .L ..., I I NC\t N I Z 8 II:coCU Z....} N = 18 a: N II: S 9. .L s a .L s n 1 S 09 .L S 19 .L S Z9 .L 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 862 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) COLLIER COUNTY WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREAS and PROPOSED WElLFiElDS AND ASRs f1 CR 846 PROPOSED NORTHEAST REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT PHASE 1A WELLFIELD AREA ORANGETREE WELL FIELD CR 846 D r-- PINE RIDGE COASTAL RIDGE WELLFIELD FLORIDA GOVERNMENTAL UTILITY AUTHORITY GOLDEN GATE WATER TREATMENT PLANT WELLFIELD PROPOSED 5 SOUTH HAWTHORN WELLFIELD EXTENSION o J CD tf) W o J G 0::: W W L(J O'l 0::: tf) o SCALE RELIABILITY WELLS BRACKISH OR FRESH WATER)I o I 5MI. WELLFIELD AREA ASR = AQUIFER STORAGE AND RECOVERY AMENDED - SEPTEMBER 10. 2003 Ord. No. 2003-44 PREPARED BY: GRAPHICS AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT SECTION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION SOURCE: COLLIER COUNTY POLLUTION CONlIlOL AND PREVENTION DEPT. DATE: 9/2006 FlLE: 'M'PZR1Z-Z006,DWG IMMOKALEE WELL FIELD CR 846 CR 858 EAST GOLDEN GATE WELLFIELD O'l N 0::: tf) I 75 EVERGLADES CITY WELLFIELD 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 863 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) BROWARD COUNTYCOLLIERCOUNTY DAOE COUNTYCOLLIERCOUNTYU) I>::Z I>:: ij;i>: 1>::1>:: '"I>:: W ij;~o:!;jo:0.. --.J i>:80:~I>::i>:I>::~5~oij;Uij;wZO: 0:2 D- o ~~~~ir~~~~ffi0u ~~8~t.;~~~~~w 0 L :::>_~<<<~<o(~Zif) 0 a.....J l.i...wo.. cox <:0 i:L ;::~~:!~~~~~~~J 0z '" 00LL >-. w 0WW ...JZ () 0: L>- :;C U 0:0 :::l W '" <l 0 ...J '" U ~ vi Z 0: W 00: ::i W U ~ ",[:'il:! ~ij; 0 0::: <( a::: wwU~-c((2 S L W C:::55Vl-:I: a::: 0:: Q) w"'~ ZO::' q!!ij; f- U) ~~~~~~8~<~ er:: 0 <UZ::EO::V1O::a..;::>- lL.. U :J: Ol,UW <...J:::':::w W 8G~g~Z::E~U~ 8~8~~~~~~i Ntti-.ittic.Or--:a::iaid er:: to r-- ~ ~ Z Z is is u U 0: ~ w J 0: J ~ 0 u '" z Z is is u u I>:: W o ::; 5 I: U 6l '~fS I 0' tI1Il1l'i" D co ci c..i co ci vi o WI>:: 0 51:: I!' co ci c..i o U X is O~ ce. o o U X L>- a I Z o Vi z2: 00 F", uW wu Ul5 1>:: o:W 0'" 0.--, 0.< i :Jt- o UlZ o o~~ w~ 001 ZZm E < < I LO ~~3 E[~~ ligG: 8 o~~ o ~~Ol g~~ 0:0< o.uo 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 864 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) BROWARO COUNTYCOLLIERCOUNTY0.. (f) ~~ ~dj0 >-~ aJm mw~J ;:im a:::8~Z~ID~?;(>-I: Z~~~~rn~~~(DmcaWm0 ~:5CD~Z~:J~tf)6ffiU1j) c;: 38~~~~~;2G~~~J 0 :::>0 <...J:::l:J<(<tffi<:::>a:::W >. Z C>t:JQ..mma..u...u....u..,IDt-u0ZcW ,..;~LritOr'cr.ioid-:NnotriZ - :J G .......................................C\lNNN~0:::: 0 wUJ <( -1 >- >->-?;(>- >- I.. ~ ~~~~ca?(mdj~~ w ::::J OJ 0::: ~U)mm>-ZaJ~z J I- 0 ~CO~f:J~f5~~~~a~ I- (f) u ~~ti~:Ja~~~~~~ J W ~...JO-c(OOO<OZO<( IUOZClo::,I-~:)<m LL ~N,..;~llitcir'cOoi~:::~ U1 z z o 0 U (J w o ::::; Q c5 r U cc:. C) DADE COUNTYCOLLIERCOUNTY oj z z 5 5 U () w w 0 a ~ U '" D IX) a:: u 61: '~rs IX) a:: 0 (') Z 0 v; 5 ao F", Uw Wu Jl5 a:: a::w 0'" 0...J Lo 0.< 5i! :::>~z J~ e", uz ('jZ3; uo~~ -00 za:: . 05~wZo WN 0 oo~J X 0 W zZ", w -.l 5i! <<I Jl~::> U uz..J 0 _w J ( f1 I::Ew 0.0...J 5 ~gG: to~ 8IX) 0 0 8~~ a::zm C~.. fb ::d:~ a:: 0 < o.uo D IX) a:: u o x w o J 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 865 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) FUTURE LAND USE MAP SOilS Western Collier County, Florida HENDRY CDUN'N SOilS OF lHE MANMADE AREAS G URBANIZED - UDORTHEN'TS - BASINGER ASSOClAll0N SOILS OF THE nDAL AREAS o DURBIN - WULFERT - CANAVERAl ASSOCIATION o KESSON - ANCLOTE - PECKISH ASSOCIATION S~lS OF THE SWAMPS, PRAIRIES AND FRESHWATER MARSHES OCHOPEE - PENNSUCO ASSOClATlON 5. RMERA - BOCA - COPEl...AND ASSOCIATION 5. WINDER - RMERA - CHoaEE ASSOCIATION SOILS OF THE FLA TWOODS. SLOUGHS AND HAMMOCKS W. PINEDA - BOCA - HALlANDALE ASSOCIATION B. It.AMOI<AI..EE - BASINGER - OLOSMAR ASSOCIATION 9. HOLOP,4,W - BASINGER - IMMOKAlEE ASSOCIATION 10. WABASSO - WINDER - HOlOPAW ASSOCIATION Pl.EASE NOTE l'liAT THIS LEGEND AND ATTACHED GENERAl SOILS MAP ARE PREUMINARY DRAFTS. MINOR ADJUSTMENTS ARE UKELY BEFORE PUBUCATION. LEGEND J: z n o BIG CYPRESS SWAMP C\ c s: j tIl o tIl Q r I::l 3;. t'\ X C) G 0 SCALE I I 0 5MI. SOURCE: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SOIL CONSERVA nON SERVICE, JUNE 1988PREPAREDBY: GRAPHICS AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT SECTION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION DATE: 9/2006 FILE: LU-94-2006,DWG EACH AREA OUTLINED ON THIS MAP CONSISTS OF MORE THAN ONE KIND OF SOIl. THE MAP IS THUS MEANT FOR GENERAL PLANNING RATHER THAN A BASIS FOR DECISIONS ON THE USE OF SPECIFIC TRACTS. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 866 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) BROWARD COUNTY DADE COUNTY1COLLIERCOUNTYCOLLIERCOUNTY0::::WZ IIIQ.. 2U1 ~W 0 Vi w w2 ---11- "0 z ~Q~50L >= zGa::zW <(U1 0 u ~~~~8UJc;:: g: ZZoOIJUzx <cz-.!:J<w gsi1l8~~0 ESo -+-' . cri,....:aioi~c viZ :J w 21- '"0 U 2U u .. w 0<( , a L <.'l 0::: uO:::: (]) z VI J I- .. f- III I- 0 0 > lfl I=! C)X .. ::: l J U Z ~~~ Vi LL ZW W w", lfl C) D::j~E5<( w w 0 I- t-Z <1-(2 :::l J a::::Sz-J~< .. J U U1 ~~~!95~ x It) w .... X ~~gffi~~ w f- W "":N rri..;fui 0 z z z 62: '~rs 0 0 u u a:: a:: w 0 3z UJ 0 I: U It) to aJ U ... 0 ... UJa:: aJ 0 u. N '" Ju. to vi a:: 10 . aJ a 01 to aJ U 5i 0 J~ 0 w 0 ...J :iu <( x "' 0 DO~ w U u z '" ( f) 13 l5 C) '" ~l5 ::> 0 a a u a:: w w 0 J a:: 5 5 l z o Vi z2' 00 lfl uw wu lfl5 f-'" W Olfl lL..J lL.. If- J)z Jw l uz;;: z~q I5<O 001 zz10 I lflf-:::l uZ..Jw I::;" Ju. lW b w-, z~ 0" lLUO 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 867 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) rl iLL I~I, i f--j=- _f-_I I Iff=l I f- ~ $t=Ii I - eo . II _L, I ! - frT' I1 '.'m!;~_j l'l! III:!~_f I .~; i I.' ! II ,N b-- ", . I ~ 1. LJiir' ~'~" i I 1111111 I!! II' i Ii II 'IIII'I!I i= i ! UU, ! II , r , i .,I:::L,-, . f---= I ~ :11: I, i I I--~. ! I-rl- l; T I !: ! r==:::..- I _I.) I ! I I I _ i I III Ii";: Oj - -' 'PJf'~ II, i II , i-~ 4< ~ ;f'.o. I' I'j'~~~~;:DO[J/~AeE w----~. u, . ~ j~~-1- [l rM- r---1L ! ~ II~ ' H'M' Ir----r' J!P=P- < I II:j I: i m! . .."f:;=r~: ITTT~' I'~I k4 'I II' I ~ I f+ :. tFlfu f-;" ~-~ , :;I 1-< ~mrlllh'" _' 2t- ~'-~ ,.... ", ,J-tiil.l " -" ~!'~" 1 ... _.....'-i., '[~" iJ1,. ,. ,_rvn\ ~ff: w.:~ l~ li :-~-- g~-V~i~'!, l1~, fn ~ ' t-: 11 I - J "' l~~ \ l'~._ r.4.:$" - c .~ t ~~il" '!" -' I" ,.::?[ r-'~ J ~"',"!!!I-L.Q ~ · ~ -.....,.~. , rrf::"~r<irr:' - ,'. t='-~:~ ,~,' '~n ~i"'" . r : I . j I . !J' ! ., f' _ 'r: . ! ~ ~-+ ~ ~ OJ ~ I I ,"-- s,~ ": . I t ~,,? 1 ~~~ <. " 1 I ',~r1!1:t~~::~TT!fl::al. ~'\' l ~ ~ ~; t~ l~~ l~.. ~~; ~I' < I ~~Q{lr ~(;'~ ,;f'..; e __. '-" - 6i. ~. - t ~ r::~~ ~ ~,' J.-: ~/~-f ~i- '')'-/ I~ 3-- . /___~'" "y JLi~. ~- 1<i,..."-f' '~=f:~ . I .. ~ ~ iQ - ~ I II < \:!I ir)II I N , IIn ;;! I ~ I I Iw In -- I II N 0 It: -:: ~ In fo. III III N It: en In oJ o c~ a.g a:: In II gN Wu..~ WI ::::I >z I -'...CII.. Z a::u.. :: C::::l . Go "'Om 4( jU'l;tIi I- a:: a. z ~i W-'In I--'z III 0:::.. U;> III 0 Z I- o U lD Z Z o N lD Z I- III w g,,\ C\\ l.-::-;::-~ - 1--_.-",; hs I-- T 48 5 5 8., .L III II N It: l III III N It: I i · :10. IIIiIIIII E10BO III1 11$1III! I~I~ II~ bl,;h . 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 868 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) N III III II N It: III o III III Ul N It: en III J f ~ II) a:: III m gN o WU.W I :) .WI W..J>Z u. 1--< J Za::u. %:). I-oen i u. I I- a:: a. Z ~i W ..J '" I- ..J Z 0:>u~ III 0 Z I- o U WI Z Z o N WI Z I- III W Joot ~. 4~\ g:. ~, C) 'I 5 6tl' .Lfr'TT'IIiT c:I-rr ~~tE:: 1-[E:l:ICC~e-- ~ 1rl- I- \I!JfifIIIIITIT e I gpj, "T ~~ ' rr~ l: I~ ~;-'~;'I 7m j,t -, ~\ l!l 11i"111 !Y~"- '-'--.. . ill" ,.' 'ffI _,,' ,.'' 1 .' i tl."} r-~~I~' , I,'. f J !. I .' q r .'~MI i - '" i. ~,f-t,.. ~ ~ : t'.. l[ j'.Ii lie I .~II b} Ii!;;;;;;;:i ~! IT II II N It: 1]t[,- fSj P\~trh ~~~U t, (t~IIlIi~~, l.. \\ L .---.;:. '-'~ _ .~ ,-"-// r;r-' II T" ,F-' l,"'--,_ ~ 1,"";; \.. t!\-"~T~~'_-.,;;~'-,;!'; Jn4ft!\J -r=:: \ :n lll"-? , J<'--<>-L 'I.' . 0 ~,1-, =- r i' I. z ~ ~~ I IiI I'. f.'>;, II'. 1 au f 1]: f<%1lC, 1 I1m-, " mr-_ n I~I- It r,r I IIi![ r f I I JI i -"'l!lI: . I i ~-~, i hf-:", .1111 . il C ~' S. . in II! : : It... ~)~ , 1, - 11 FL"; ~"E:;~"it l i I ~ F,' C:/R:_~1 o~ 6:...J;i ' ".8 ~::;\....,!1~ ,'.., 1),)-". Iir~., -. u h:,,'" , ,~~~ J 1-..;;"" 1"fi '-:- 1 !: 3' I, ,:5 ..,...;... r. , -'/ i I ~ r" I l '. I., I I ",-' ~~,'~ i~ ~ _~.' ' I'~,;- .I IJ I A -..y..! "y.-'" "<'1 ~~~_I': .I~ ~_..;i~~ld :~ Li.~1 ~[Jir;}E...~.Y;~~L. .: ~ ri~.1f1j: C~:-: (:. It ' I..~.~. "'-':;"'' iT-- f: C : c:ZCCY \" ' 5""'--1:...;... ~", . I "" 'A~ ,.,,~\LT-1'~~ ._':;~~.~,;:: ~ 't~.;:c . .f- .e. ~-'-,.., "'. ". . .... ." tt;Zc!e::;:='~ l:-L^~ E,.,' .;~~.: .; . . . . r' ='7c--:"'~' '~ 8 c:~:~-- ~~~ I i=h- ~ P= Li-JJI: f';-' r~ _ I 1. t '::='l! 1\ 1f,!( IJJr - c It I ti' ,I r:r I1f.." II ,~'; I 1/1 N It: Z Ijl IIIl'j 11'11iIII. I?n Ii 11111 if:0 . ['] ' 1'1;o . 1 ~ T 49 5 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 869 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) N n III UI N It: n o III III 1ft N II:: en In J f e &b It: &n II 9 N WU.W a ... .ID W::j>-Z u.1-< it Zit: 00 U&n I- It: D. Z ! i: W ..J '" n s ~ U;> UI 0 Z I- o U ID Z Z o N ID Z I- Ul W 6.. \\y 5 05 J.ilIuwIIfTl'Lrff - N r H- e-:rrIt-r- 1=I e- e-DjIII, r=-~II ~:' ..'----fT oC n'll.! ~L:J ~ -/, i ~ : I 1--= -" PO' ~ ;J1r;;F, "I - ti ~ < DJ ~ I \ h ..L7 " , I liT Iii I II/III iI I II i!ITI >-1~ ; i ' I,: t "I! ~ M~ 1": / r~.~~ ~~~I ~ --U ,,7 ~" l-. -f'"(I I I r.=; -- b /..,-~' y~_.': .' '-J .~l L / I l!Ji =Z--:. "';"'" i~:~I . I ! ::' : ! . ,??," 1= i I' -:7 _~ .:.Y-';J I~~~ o:q:~~ "'~-.~ ! i~>~ L- . 7/d[lJd. tlL :W; ~ I ,L/":/ Q'T- )Y\ey)" ~I'IC~-~ t= .1 ~,~j t" , ;~ ~ J'i!. I "';).0=\ '"""" r:1-. '- ,,/ ~ . I, ',~ k"i I~~~ ~11=ti I. 11' '- '~L_~_,I ~ ., ,s' III, ~;~;::',C:' ti' ~,~.- II 'II -e: ~- ~'"-'- J. ITT'~ /';.~ ,'.I . ',' ,:::~;' _ I:d II ~ l"i .{:~'V;tfL..l', 1~-<< I, . I k'l ~,,;, -.J r I CT ,,1 -'" rr:-1 ,U:." ,..: I , ,~i' D IT;:j t.--,- ._ -'--.. L___ ,'/.~ I ,g). &,= 1Jrll ~~~~.JH=' ~~.~.~~~t.~.~; rb'-~;"'-=-i. u '~ K-! j~~. .J'.,,-,- . .____.:-;: I '~'-'f If.'i'i)~' '- {.--:~-I~.~~ r 'It~~ i I ."i. !tf~li . ': J~/'\ i,.: I. T-.i-"'.. _,,}., ~)/..~ >. ." "'. .. Gl...'..'_.~. i ~ ~ ~ ~,'~ s,l~ I ',- ':';ii"-' ;~L.;.:'~ I _;, pr;. J;'iiL1 ~ ,Iii . ~ lE\~~I~;-f!':I I~II :. __ s, -." ;)fil ;lI~tllli i:llli 11ir II!l.! I! 7 r I <! ,-. E j _ !!:~ :_ .~~1~w~J~ ~ Ill'; ~ ~.c< I.< i0} l ~~pr;; L' ~ ~l II '. ..' ~(1-1." ~.~k ~== I d,liY I U 'r ':=" -'.,: rI fl ,Itl ,) ~'.~, [~~.. __ I ~ .~~. '~~, i f' III UI N Ill:: III 1ft N Ill:: ut~..,...-~ 8 s~B I II 1- I Ii! s!l;i 1111,d !.. I I Iii ,Ll I I I III III: o rn 0 IH] f;l~ T 50 5 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 870 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) N iii 1ft o iii en iii U>> 4I( N a. 5! d) D:1ft 1119N UI IL UI UJ Z IL ... 41( cZD: 0": U 1ft Z... ~!: c UI -' '" n ~ ~U;:> 0 Z ... o u UJ Z Z o N UJ Z l! UI ce. \\ C)\ 5 IS ~ l ~l~S} i \I ,__ i III N a:: III II N a:: i T SI 5 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 871 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) II N It II II N It: I II I J U. A. c( E! an en an N J Oac( lob4._ It: UI mgN W u. 'II I .lD J>-Z u.~c( Zit: 1 oRi Uan It: 4. z!i: II ""'an 11-0 .. J Z VI :::.u~ VI 0 Z ~ o IU Z Z o N I!II Z I- IA II c;&. ~\ C) \\ e'." ;: :!: ,,;.! ~ ~-;<"~i:::I ,\ ,~____ "I,'-1 ~ ' _~--I1----- ~\ "--. _ \ ,.-: .I '~, _~! -,_.~(. fI6'1';,,:~,~~':f~~' .<"~~~1:<' ;{: .~i!t- } ~ -, J'" "1 -=-/ ..'''<S .~:.--_.... ~-'\J~~ ___-'I'~~ '.""'- "'~(~,~.~~.(? ,..........: r._~ l ! ,,",) Jq. '~~f')'\.-:'~~.! .~.}..) ;'.-\ /rI ~ :,~7 CA:'" _,",-, " '.'_ I I .......:-. or -~"'.:,-,~ '\"< t f! ...,'[ - t- 1:: ;:J i:;' / -' /". _.::r.,' :. ~"~ v; E:.:~~., '. ."). '. ~/ . ,~,.,'- " . p/. ,C\?:]4' -::r"" 'T'''~ !::::-~I .. ~ tL '~...J.' : . I _~",--"'" IJr!<tF'~~':~'>-<: l : r.- , \' -.--:.:: t'2('~~",,'~ro ir ~~~:~ (.'. M r.. ..1.. :.. ."/-~~- ~,~ ~.i.: -.:."'-' -: '-;'...., "- L:::~'~ l' \~'::< ~~_ g: j" \...r '~"'~"" i S' ""'-""'?-'-'" 3: \. - _ r~~_-:;: 'i~ \ I '-...J" -~-~ I , 7 :r __.1 '~-; r, I f!\~ t'~~:<;,;..:,.' L' I . S 25 ~o.'. N II t ~II, ..." {~ 'j ~__ l--:':~h') 1- v II ~ r:r ,- 1- an o t.)i/ --". '_. . 1 ,. ~A4,~~.fl'!,.f. 'j y::~_ 0 ": J \i~';' ~ t';~ ., r- .;-:",;y. '. IC." ~ -E, l~"~~~-=-'~ o.,:'__-- '/ q-/ J."? -- ,:".;. Ii .- \/J..r') -- j '"'I...,.r., iY c; i2Dl I., r.... i .~......I \ ,........( , c....--' .\. 'fii ';1 ~~~., c.~" .~._I "-'<<' >> . _, ~.~.~ ...",,; i f':'-'-~-l~'/t';.c,-:- ! t ~(i \ j:"';:,: J '~;'> I ~ N ':. ~ I if ____i ,. L.----t--- ir,i .' --{II <<, 1 I ': 0-; './J ,.; I' .... I, -' ~."- -~ Ir,),tkf. \, .' ' .;;- \ \/. l. ii ;!I <' ---'~ '.1 1Y"~~ . ',I 'I j) ';',\\11I !../ ~ '" <) I('-:.~J! ~\"'S~[ ' 1'.' p''-? Ii / V-'":~ './:..' 1--1''>':,' / __ J-x-6C' 2:::' I~ . < .0-;' /.; ~_~ r_.: o ;I ,~: \} , [:):~~)~ ~~! " f> .- I'.~ -' U ./ ..., / \ ~';).J -,-./ \_ ~ r'f; ;'-, ';;, ~'=,' /'0'-' / ..~~"r,f "~, I I \ / /' 'fii. ?i'di '" i )..' '-,. I ( _ { .J/ , 1'''\'' \"'';. 'if _ ",f--- r) . -" ." ~ k . .H>;fg~j~_ '::';;~~J r, ~ c./L r#.1.~ :,}!!' .. J;;~~ e<.' , _ .....-"~ F' I-~-'~: ./ ~,,~~4{'.r~.~: ~.J~ . A~ :;~ 1v ~ ' >..d : .~~ ........' jl~.F jl-;;'~ ...I' v ---: r' ! . ~ ljl I€-. 111 ~ _ p~.<'!._:.ij ~ ,..d ~_ ~ .-; r ~ \ ... L-.-...- I ~. ~ t'" ,.\-........ _~____~ 1~ ~iF- . ~/ '; \.~~------ I I " _ h ..J.., y--... \,. ~ y ,\..c, ____.--I \ \~,\, r~ . f};'<, ~"/ ~._'__ __._.__ ft!tij!!lc" /j;tr~' / ~.~i >.0 ~~~ \ ~'~ 11: ' ....,,/.S" ;; // 14' r~F: __ i i i I l/t~: T 52 S A \ , _ ~ l ') :}\ ::;~;:;~:~ j J 0'1 (" i '" N i\ i I I i ~ j 1'., I I i I I I~~ I i / i j:~ . i I /. b~-~~-,. ..r r '- N 4(' i i i i i i i I i N I z ~I; I o IU N It I j I I I I'~ S II II N It I~ I IIiiii! ;111 i I dl ~lti 111111 !I~: EJ 0 II 0 hi; h~~ 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 872 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) 5 917 J.L1Il" .ilr---I ----r--I ~IIII o l'IIiir------- N Mi N m N M o nIii N en fl I I g -c II o.e Ir , t--- 3 >= c( , ~ IlL i= W I A I =~=~ o;g I : i Y I:) i 0 Ii i:!I:::i!i I N ~ '" I ~ N w..J~ I ~ t; ~ j------. J,- u I ;'J- l'D l --- 2 ~ ~ m ji N wi z r-- " I-! l-.= ==,C I L'E !:'~'_ ,I Q ' i--'~__ H~ N N l-- ~ I \\---~--.. i f' J.;c'~:':::;'\::~~:'-:::"'1,,-:,:,:;::; - 1 \ r~-; l' 2 r N N i; --- _,_-.. L S!f' t. r,t;. C)' T 46 5 T 47 ~ n"2 ;u'.i' .t tt f<; l I I!..:.,. i I i r~ 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 873 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) r-c:)r--- -- ---------iIiOl1i! .-------r-L.---,-------i Ol 15i! I-r----- --'--,Q..oII)NINooNcia::sr--------lI ,I ,1 i I' D- c( IE D::: w o w c c( w IE w I I W m t: D::: o Z I I --Q'! 0::: I I lU ! 3 I 0---1 L_-.--(b ! I ~ I N ~ I I I i l--- UJ i 1 Q J 5 i I " (!) i I i _ -+-- i i I i I I i j i n t---- I i 1 Ol I-'-ji! N NooNoi f"')G wZJo w n. o Cl GO i i l----"---r--- C'. a~'V1=nn08 ~3a'(7f)H3~3 i ~ i :0' i o n 1 S' m i i I I I I :::' 0 N co 96 '~rQ) a~lIl\:Jln08 ~3nl0Q T-'-i I II -' ~' Ii',,, ! I ~ ~I J' I I~I CJ I i (~ : J 'i '" 'i I I I ~,1 ~"- r~ r I I' L8 I II~~: II:~~II II i l CJ') , ffi C~ J.;;:: 8~ L~ N i i J i i j I/O J i I I I I f J Ijl l 3? --==:r-- 0:; -7u ~7l,,;1-': a 0 7' 3 t:~ C,--- S-: I i W I- z o Ci 0::; i= ul ~ o u.s-. wuo I' u...;~ D "< 0-, u1 ~!~ j z I o>-- u~r: u .~. L.' r-W> c~ OLe.; c_ ~-~ ~; t: 21 ::: c_ (J ('} 1 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 874 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) SA YSHORE / BA rEWA Y TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT OVERlA Y T I Q- " rE2-'- T ~~ ~c _ ~ 111 II = _.. 1DD1AC lFi- e- Ii ' IITmi : .1:AC. -::' 1=::8'1 4il i~-' l~' ~w S: /~ 'co- ~ I :----. ~ I o~ a Kt~ W " l' . :_ tt: --;_....... ~ e? ~ i ~~, . I I '5' ~ ;1"\1: I~~_~ ! ~ I~ -..'="-<"" ill; ~L r .. ";' ._~ '~ll . Iii .. ~;",~R'F<U. ~ I.~ r:~~ 1~ ~ 0'_- h"\ ~. 1'*' oJ.) t- ~ ,d1 I (!)~ ~)U' - c..P"- ~""A ~;~ 1/I ~ H~:~ ;'<~v'1;. I _'?~ ~ ~! c;:> --- f-f ~. ~~r~'." 0 ~ ~: t:' CI 41 ~ V ~ ,J r- I g 'W ~~~ ~n ;;~ : "_~ ~ "~.-i~if':I - ~ - ""~. . ~~lff : i",I-Tlllfl 1'0. <'.,;'~ ~ J,~ " l, - ~ I n II + II I I \ ~ ~', -~ J) I Is: :3 ~ .'IIIIII ,~~' 9,\l!5":1-, =j -=_ . ~ _ I ~-----'~ \: I ~ . Ul'AC -: ~ . p'~.' ~~ l -~ El'u. .~ l:J'M" - _ -- f/i ~ ^ \ -. 7 AC. r=1D,a2AC, II:lJW I:::i::: .Il-t-l-HJ:: I (\.. ~ 1"1Ti'fi1"'L I ~ ' CONTRACT BEING NEGOTIATED TnfI'C 4)Jom: TlT II! f::l- II " II) ~ 1(' ~ ~ j( II III)! ~ f V~ ! IT IT lil~ 11 r;J 9.50AC. j///AI -co BOTANiCAl GARDENS' PROPERTY EUGIBLE FOR DENSITY TRANSFER) CONTRACT BEING NEGOTlA TED ELIGIBLE FOR DENSITY TRANSFER IF PURCHASED) BAYSHORE I GATEWAY lRIANGLE REDEVaOPMENT OVERLAY BOUNDARY MINllRIANGlE' CATALYST PROJECT 1. PREPARED BY: CRAPHICS AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT SECTION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION DATE: 2/2006 FILE; BAYGATE-OVERLAY-1C.DWG 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 875 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) I GOLDEN~ATE BLVD I nT-" r COLLIER COUNTY RURAL & AGRICULTURAL AREA ASSESSMENT STEWARDSHIP OVERLAY MAP I legend ll!\i.I; Open 5DOft Ruloratlan Zone MQI '"' am:c or~~ IICl11CA1, $1.,Oilf I.l.!iUl\tCaDl_ 1l;~i'"- _~IG 1 W..rRetenlonArea (WRA) i BIg Cypress Nation" FOl'8$t FtOWYMY stewardship Are. (FSA) 0 Area. of Cdbl SWl8 Concern liebllal stewoRl.hlp AmI (HSA) 0 stewanl.11p R.ceMng An>. (SRA) o 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 876 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) o o C CIl E c CJ III i 1 m 8 a: III 1: o t Ul J a: I o o j 0 o tiiii:w CIl u; C tl e III c o III tll C 8 CIl a: Q. c CIl tI CIl iij coccc3- E o CJ i E I: c 0 o 2 i CJ a. C o o o U m 8, g o U o o o f o o 0. U C Q .~i C IiooIcSCi o c o o e 0. o S! U m o o 6> o n o o e 0. o o n o m 0 o o 0. o o 2 11gu.Ui I j g iij lij Le g> Ui h E~ g~ 0 a-E 0 ui g>~ ij) en 0 o "in a-' j ~ is E 0 iifi g,g 1'. c 5 Le o f) g> CC mg.Iio20S! s5~il; Ec3 J g- Ij o 2 E in E cc 0 u o g 0 so i5~ E ij E u o g. Ij g- I) o 2 1b 0 8~ cc 0 u @ 8 E .f 1 i ~ .~ cr: ~ ~ o ::!E a- j 5 g cc 5 o u: E o E 8 ~ 55 8:;~ o ~ 0. m o - ~ @ ~ ~ 0", Q) ~.= z~~ c:::: lh J: ~ g o E8.~ ::>S 0r~~t iii!lJ8c~c ~ '"0",J:=:;'s'(/) ec ~ '"3.~ ~O5 ;E Ui Ql 0. 1;1 Jl :;, 0 c 0' 0.0 00 o 0 l e ULe f) c 0 o E 5 ~ E': in Q) 0. i! ra f) '" 0 c g o , g~ e ULe c 0 o o 2EEIi ;_:1/oEE3JHE Ig-~ * fJf!U) g~i: 8~ 11 N 2: ~ 0 _ E.E o E , E I E 5r~ (;j c ~ c 0 N 2:~ 0>0 E a:; o 2 E o E i 0 c_ H o ~ o m g- II; il H ,~ C I- (II:! E tuh h i~ u l~ H ~ I;I ~ ~ i8~o ~ - c Q) III U i~ ~ o f) o Ie ooceO>lfioo.~gg -~ wlS~g.g0. 0zj8 ~ o ~ O 0.- g g j :~ S:!S g 0. o 0 o ~ 0 ' 0Z0 t>> 0 fi 0.- E e ~ R .~ 1 g 0. o o co 6> go U';' lg~ r./J 8 00 Z s- o u:: 8 0. a- 2 E o o o8Ia:Cccf)0Ei ~J ~0.f)cg o o cc cc f) 0 o g 5 ~ E U m 0. e g o U m 5.8 u.c Cl 0. 0 0 '" III g g CC m 0. U C g o o o o o U g e g c CC E 08i1 ~UJ UjgeCC .s1 g E i: E U Lj o f)U:: 0'" cc i o u:: f) E 2 E U 0 CC 0 i: o f) 0 E J o0 g f w J; 0: U f) E o 0 5 E W g e s 0: 122 jg 8 'f; a:~ Le-~'~ ! h g~~ u :2 0 9~ ii '" 0 <; H 8 HfiJ8~ 9!~ s ~ 9lij U C.Q Q f) I E o l U c3 asg8'~i- ~ 1il ~, Yg~15leuc~s-gii "0. 0I~j2~:S ejIII ~ iUw,020ojoge o 2, J =;: fa .~ W 0. g e 0 0 i o U Cl. o ii f 0. 0 g I ~i i ~ 2,,s l!! i r./J ~ i U w, 0 u I III @ iii f 8 o c o o 5l- rlot:5 Ql 2 t: 1: Ql E u g s t: o Ql'O Ql t: Ql 0'0 Ql ~ j j jr--: ti'l:.: d;8. 0. ar:: 5 :~ s e 0. o c c 0 m C 0'" a 0 g f; o o . g ~ 0 i ~ 0 8- c",o. nJlig:g~~ g~g c[ ~ o III W W C!).s-S~ E~~ ii O'j e 1ii ~ tl -5:2 J1ii.~ ~ ui1~ ~ III ~ ~ t3 ~ ~ ,~ 6~ Ji ~ i J"" 0 . Jga~- i i~ffi~ 3 ~ gmg~J li.~~!~ i~~~~~ IlIuUIIlI UHilli' i ~ o E ij Ql 0 0 Ql II 0 o s: 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 877 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) STATE OF FLORIDA) COUNTY OF COLLIER) I, DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk of Courts in and for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Collier County, Florida, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of: ORDINANCE 2007-18 Which was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on the 25th day of January, 2007, during Special Session. WITNESS my hand and the official seal of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this 2nd day of February, 2007. DWIGHT E. BROCK Clerk of Courts and Clerk Ex-officio to Board of County Commissioners, lluu ~ 0'<'. By: Ann Jennejohn, Deputy Clerk 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 878 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 879 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 880 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 881 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) i 5.0 Execu ve Summary ............................................................................................5 E 1 5.0.1 Execu ve Summary.................................................................................5 E 1 5.0.2 Goals........................................................................................................5 E 1 5.0.3 Conceptual Plan Diagram........................................................................5 E 4 5.0.4 Character Areas.......................................................................................5 E 7 5.0.5 Focus of Redevelopment.........................................................................5 E 9 5.0.6 Priori za on & Funding ........................................................................5 E 10 5.0.7 2000 & 2019 Plan Comparison..............................................................5 E 14 5.1 Introduc on .......................................................................................................5 1 1 5.1.1 Vision.......................................................................................................5 1 1 5.1.2 Process.....................................................................................................5 1 1 5.1.3 Plan Organiza on....................................................................................5 1 1 5.2 Background.........................................................................................................5 2 1 5.2.1 Crea on of the CRA Area ........................................................................5 2 1 5.2.2 2000 Redevelopment Plan Goals and Projects.......................................5 2 1 5.2.3 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle CRA 2019 Perspec ve................................5 2 9 5.3 Planning Framework &Elements .......................................................................5 3 1 5.3.1 Conceptual Plan Diagram........................................................................5 3 2 5.3.2 Land Use & Urban Design........................................................................5 3 7 5.3.3 Public Space, Parks, & Open Space.......................................................5 3 26 5.3.4 Development.........................................................................................5 3 31 5.3.5 Transporta on, Connec vity, & Walkability.........................................5 3 42 5.3.6 Infrastructure ........................................................................................5 3 59 5.3.7 Process...................................................................................................5 3 66 5.3.8 Character Areas.....................................................................................5 3 67 5.4 Priori za on Plan ...............................................................................................5 4 1 5.4.1 Priori za on of Projects & Ini a ves......................................................5 4 1 5.4.2 Financing Planning...................................................................................5 4 1 5.4.3 Projects & Ini a ves Priori za on .........................................................5 4 5 5.4.4 Coordina on & Partnerships.................................................................5 4 17 5.5 General Requirements .......................................................................................5 5 1 5.5.1 Overview of Relevant Statutes................................................................5 5 1 5.5.2 Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan..............................5 5 1 5.5.3 Acquisi on, Demoli on/Clearance, & Improvement..............................5 5 1 5.5.4 Zoning & Comprehensive Plan Changes.................................................5 5 1 5.5.5 Land Use, Densi es, & Building Requirements.......................................5 5 1 5.5.6 Neighborhood Impact.............................................................................5 5 5 5.5.7 Safeguards, Controls, Restric ons, & Assurances...................................5 5 5 5.6 Tax Increment &MSTU Es mates ......................................................................5 6 1 5.6.1 Tax Increment Financing.........................................................................5 6 1 5.6.2 Municipal Service Taxing Units (MSTUs).................................................5 6 2 5.6.3 Underlying Assump ons .......................................................................5 6 12 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 882 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan 2019ii This page is inten onally le blank. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 883 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 884 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY -- 5.0 5.0.1 Executive Summary - -- 5.0.2 Goals Land Use & Urban Design Public Space, Parks, & Open Space - Development Transportation, Connectivity, & Walkability Infrastructure Process -- - -- - Promote quality of life and economic vitality with a mixed-income, urban, multi-modal community that welcomes visitors, uplifts unique local destinations, and finds balance with the natural environment. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 885 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan 5 E 2 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 886 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan5 This page is inten onally le blank. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 887 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan5E4 Complete Streets & Trail (Neighborhood) Complete Streets (Major) Complete Streets (Major) Public Space, Parks, & Open Space Monument Sign for Gateway Intersecon Figure 5ES1 provides a Concept Plan illustrang future land use and capital improvements with associated goals of Land Use & Design; Public Space Parks, & Open Space; Development; Transportaon, Connecvity, & Walkability; and Infrastructure. See the map legend on the following page for project descripons and addional capital improvements without specied locaons at this me. Note that minor arterials, and major arterials in the CRA area.Major Corridor Land Use & Design Public Space, Parks, & Open Focus Corridor Transportaon, Connecvity, & Walkability Infrastructure Development 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 888 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 889 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 890 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY -- 5.0 Non-Capital Projects - - - - - Non-Location Specific Capital Projects - - 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 891 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY -- 5.0 - - - - -- -- - 5.0.4 Character Areas - --- 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 892 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY -- 5.0 -- 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 893 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY -- 5.0 5.0.5 Focus of Redevelopment -- 1. Mini Triangle/Davis - - - 2. Shadowlawn 3. Airport Pulling 4. Tamiami 5. Windstar 6. North Bayshore - - 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 894 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY -- 5.0 7. South Bayshore - 5.0.6 Prioritization & Funding - -- - - - - -- ---- - -- -- 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 895 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY -- 5.0 -- --- -- - - - 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 896 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY -- 5.0 --- - 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 897 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY -- 5.0 -- --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 898 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY -- 5.0 - - - - - -- 5.0.7 2000 & 2019 Plan Comparison -- -- 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 899 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY -- 5.0 -- 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 900 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY -- 5.0 - -- 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 901 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY -- 5.0 -- - -- - - 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 902 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 903 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan511 The 2019 Redevelopment Area Plan provides an updated vision and approach for the redevelopment of the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA area in Collier County (see Map 5 1 1). The Plan brings together informa on gathered from technical analysis, eldwork observa on, and public and agency outreach (documented in further detail in a separate Assessment Memo). From these e orts and the resul ng themes iden ed, an overarching vision emerged for the future of the CRA area: This vision provides the guidance for the overall framework and projects laid out in this Redevelopment Area Plan for furthering the revitaliza on of the CRA area. This Plan is meant to provide a pale e of op ons, generated by the technical analysis, eldwork observa ons, and public and agency outreach, that the CRA can further explore. Consequently, not all of these sugges ons will necessarily be carried through to full implementa on. Full implementa on of framework strategies and projects will be based on further study of capacity, technical feasibility, and public priori es. The technical analysis involved in the Redevelopment Area Plan process included a review of the exis ng plans related to the CRA area, as well as spa al and quan ta ve analysis of data related to the CRA area. The study team also conducted eldwork to collect addi onal informa ndings in the data. The public and agency outreach consisted of stakeholder and agency mee ngs and calls, two public workshops, and a boat tour of Haldeman Creek and adjacent canal areas. Figure 5 1 1 illustrates the complete planning process. The remaining sec ons of this Plan cover the following topics: Sec on 5.2: the CRA area, including the original 2000 CRA Plan and status update Sec on 5.3: framework of goals, objec ves, and strategies related to redevelopment in the CRA area, with suppor ng informa on on exis ng condi ons, opportuni es, and approaches for carrying out strategies Sec on 5.4: Priori za on on revenues; capital project funding and phasing; and planning, administra ve, and regulatory ini a ves Sec on 5.5: on on addi onal regulatory requirements for the CRA Plan and conclusion Sec on 5.6: Tax Increment & MSTU Es provides methodology and underlying assump ons for tax increment and Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) revenues. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 904 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Are Plan 5 1 2 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 905 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan513 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 906 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 907 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan May 2019 5 2 1 The Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA area is located primarily in unincorporated Collier County to the southeast of the city of Naples (a small por on of the area is in the city of Naples; see Map 5 1 1). It is near the popular des na ons of Downtown Naples and coastal beaches and is bisected by US 41, a major regional thoroughfare. This corridor denes two major sub Gateway Triangle community north of US 41 and the Bayshore community south of US 41 (see Map 5 1 1 for CRA area and Resolu on 2000 82, Exhibit A at end of this document for a legal descrip on of the CRA boundary). The CRA was created in 2000 under the jurisdic on of Collier County to facilitate the physical and economic revitaliza on and enhancement of the community. Its crea on was based on documen ng condi ons of blight in a Finding of Necessity study, as required by Florida Statute 163.340. Table 5 2 1 provides an overview of the ndings. The 2000 Plan laid out visual concept goals and corresponding redevelopment projects to improve condi ons in the CRA area. The projects were planned out in phases over a 20 year me span. Map 5 2 1 shows the overall Land Use Plan illustra ng general land uses and signicant ac vity centers. The Land Use Plan suggested a basic regulatory framework that would guide Future Land Use Map and zoning amendments to support the redevelopment of the CRA area. In addi on to the Land Use Plan, the 2000 Plan provided an Urban Design Framework to illustrate the following: 1. Primary areas an cipated to undergo signicant change via redevelopment or inll development, receive improvements via neighborhood improvement strategies, or remain as stable and planned development areas 2. Basic site design condi ons recommended to implement the vision dened in the public outreach process 3. Primary corridors and areas recommended for landscape/streetscape improvements in support of the vision dened in the public outreach The primary areas an cipated to undergo signicant change included: Triangle area approximately dened by US 41, Davis Blvd, and a line based on the projected alignment of Pine St to the north of US 41 Naples Plaza (southwest of Davis Blvd and US 41 intersec on) and adjacent proper es Gulfgate Plaza as a Town Center Commercial uses on Naples Steel proper es (along US 41) and other proper es on Gulfgate Residen al uses south and west of Gulfgate Inll: Mul and single family residen al in Shadowlawn neighborhood Commercial uses for Haldeman Creek entertainment center Mixed mul family and commercial uses along Bayshore Drive north of Lake View (Lakeview) Dr Residen al and commercial at Bay Center 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 908 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan May 2019 5 2 2 Main Issue Sub Issue Specic Loca ons Men oned Predominance of defec ve or inadequate street layout Inadequate street layout and design (including sub standard street widths) Shadowlawn Dr Thomasson Dr Most local streets Commercial parking problems Davis Blvd Airport Rd Bayshore Rd US 41 Lack of streetlights along major arterial and most local streets Major arterials Most local streets Davis Blvd Lack of sidewalks Shadowlawn Dr Bayshore Rd south of Thomasson Rd Most local streets Lack of neighborhood connec ons Residen al neighborhoods Faulty lot layout in rela on to size, adequacy, accessibility, or usefulness Commercial lots US 41 Davis Blvd Between Pine St and US 41 Built density far below approved density RMF 6 residences in Gateway Triangle area Not mee ng lot standards in at least one respect RMF 6 residen al proper es Bayshore area residences Unsanitary or unsafe condi ons Dispropor onate lack of plumbing Dispropor onate overcrowding 2 unsafe structures Lack of sidewalks and streetlights Deteriora on of site or other improvements Poor drainage of local roads, surface water management problems Other problems Lack of right of way for improvements along Shadowlawn Dr No public transporta on provided in CRA area Housing a ordability noted as an issue in the county and as an issue that could get worse in the CRA area Table 5 2 1: Findings of Blighted Condi ons in CRA Area 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 909 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan May 2019 5 2 3 area (Bayshore and Thomasson) Other opportuni es in the Medium Intensity residen al area of Land Use Plan The public outreach of the 2000 Plan dened the establishment of a Neighborhood Focus Ini a ve as a programma c objec ve. The aim of such a program on of a variety of public and quasi public services to enhance major residen al por neighborhoods for improvements specied in the 2000 Plan included: Bayshore Shadowlawn The primary areas for stability and planned development with low intensity residen al included: Windstar Sabal Bay (Hamilton Bay) development Site design standards included: Roof pa erns reec ve of Old Florida architectural style Placement of buildings close to street to support pedestrian ac vity Use of rec linear block pa ern to strengthen predominant established character of area Placement of parking to rear of development sites The following lays out items covered by the visual preference statement from the public outreach e ort of the 2000 Plan, which supported the design standards: and dormers ng low, monument style sign with business logogram (representa ve sign or background and surrounding landscape plan ng ng sidewalk set back from curb by distance greater than width of walk and with plan ng materials and low pedestrian ligh ng provided between walk and curb On ng street with narrow planted median and use of angle parking interspersed with plan ng areas on both sides of street ng street with landscaped median and landscaping and decora ve ligh ng xtures on edges ng pedestrian area with palms and large pool with water jet fountain In terms of landscape and streetscape improvements, the design framework focused on: Treatments for major roadways, including: Davis Blvd Airport Pulling Rd US 41 Bayshore Dr Thomasson Dr Signicant gateway intersec on designs at intersec ons of the above streets as well as: Shadowlawn Dr south of Davis and North of US 41 Linwood Ave at Airport Pulling Rd Pelton Ave north of US 41 Intersec on proposed at east/west street with Bayshore Dr 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 910 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan 5 2 4 Shadowlawn Neighborhood Bayshore Neighborhood Bayshore Neighborhood Windstar Sabal Bay Naples Steel Site 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 911 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan525 2000 Plan Projects Status 2019 Redevelopment Area Plan Update Response Catalyst Redevelopment Projects Triangle Hotel/ Restaurant/ O ce Parcel at apex currently vacant; CRA owned property under contract for sale and received PUD zoning for Mixed Use project. Specic planning tasks included for Mini Triangle and larger Triangle area with associated improvements (primarily roadway, infrastructure, and land use transi ons) and incen ves iden ed that are generally supported by the Redevelopment Area Plan (see Sec ons 5.3.2, 5.3.4, 5.3.5, and 5.3.6); general development support is also funded in the non capital projects (see Sec on 5.4) O ce/ Warehouse Current mix of commercial and industrial uses. Specic planning tasks included for Mini Triangle and larger Triangle area with associated improvements (primarily roadway, infrastructure, and land use transi ons) and incen ves iden ed that are generally supported by the Redevelopment Area Plan (see Sec ons 5.3.2, 5.3.4, 5.3.5, and 5.3.6); general development support is also funded in the non capital projects (see Sec on 5.4) Town Center (Gulfgate Plaza) Gulfgate Plaza currently has tenants; considera on needs to be given to type of establishments desired for this space. A small business incubator might be a good use for vacant o ce on second oor. Iden ed as an opportunity for new tenancy in second oor space and to incen vize op mal tenant mix and walkable design; Courthouse Shadows is another large commercial space providing a redevelopment opportunity (Sec on 5.3.4) Table 5 2 2: Status of Key Land Use Areas and Ini a ves of the 2000 Plan Table 5 2 2 provides a status update for the various areas and ini a ves iden ed for Tax Increment Finance (TIF) funding in the 2000 Plan, as well as how the Redevelopment Area Plan update responds to the iden ed ini a ves. Note that two addi onal redevelopment sites, Naples Plaza and Naples Steel, were iden ed for private redevelopment without TIF assistance (now Naples Bay Club/Co ages at Naples Bay Resort and Woodspring Suites, respec vely). While the 2000 Plan has a strong orienta on around these sites and ini a ves, the updated Redevelopment Area Plan is oriented around general themes of: Land Use and Urban Design; Public Space, Parks, & Open Space; Development; Transporta on, Connec vity, & Walkability; Infrastructure; and Process. As a result, the updated Redevelopment Plan contains addi onal considera ons that may not stem directly from the 2000 Plan, including but not limited to: A focus on the CRA owned 17 Acre Site west of Sugden Regional Park for catalyst redevelopment A focus on arts and culture in the CRA redevelopment vision Connec ons to nearby parks Land use transi ons between incompa ble uses and densi es/intensi es More comprehensive infrastructure improvements 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 912 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan 5 2 6 2000 Plan Projects Status 2019 Redevelopment Area Plan Update Response Catalyst Redevelopment Projects (Con nued) Entertainment Center (Haldeman Creek) Three60 Market has been established west of bridge and south of creek; food truck park recently opened on north side of creek under same ownership as Three60 Market. Need for commercial parking has emerged as an issue in this area. Recommenda ons made to evaluate LDC changes to facilitate commercial development such as that in the Bayshore area (Sec on 5.3.4); commercial parking solu ons explored (Sec on 5.3.5, Sec on 5.4) Neighborhood Focus Ini a ve Shadowlawn The 2000 Plan ini a ve included the following: New general housing and a ordable housing Rehabilita on of a ordable housing Neighborhood gateway features Tra c calming by closing part of Linwood Extension of Pelton Ave to Linwood for improved internal circula on Current status: The Shadowlawn improvements delayed due to recession, warran ng priori za on of current study and improvement implementa on approach for area. However, some stormwater planning and improvements completed for area (see General Infrastructure Improvements sec on below). CRA will generally aim to con nue these Neighborhood Focus Ini a ves. Neighborhood enhancement focused on structural upgrades, limi ng uses incompa ble with the redevelopment vision, transi ons between uses/intensi es, inll development on vacant lots, addressing ooding/drainage, and complete streets/transporta on improvements that will address streetscape elements such as ligh ng and tra c calming. These improvements will likely require strategic property acquisi on and demoli on of structures for redevelopment. Other relevant ini a ves include gateway design and coordina on with County sheri , code enforcement, and housing agencies to address quality and supply of housing and streetligh ng. See sec on 5.3 for more informa on. Table 5 2 2 (con nued): Status of Key Land Use Areas and Ini a ves of the 2000 Plan 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 913 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan527 2000 Plan Projects Status 2019 Redevelopment Area Plan Update Response Neighborhood Focus Ini a ves (Con nued) Bayshore The 2000 Plan ini a ve included the following: Landscaping and beau ca on along Bayshore Drive New a ordable housing Rehabilita on of market rate and a ordable housing Botanical Gardens reloca on Design of new neighborhood park and connec on to Sugden Park site Sabal Bay development (pending legal ac ons) Current related e orts include: Beau ca on and roadway improvements planned for Hamilton Ave and Thomasson Dr, funded by the Bayshore Beau ca on MSTU. Addi onal stormwater planning and improvements completed for area (see General Infrastructure Improvements sec on below). Residen al units have been built; substandard housing has been demolished. CRA will generally aim to con nue these Neighborhood Focus Ini a ves. Redevelopment focus for this neighborhood split into North and South. North focus: commercial/catalyst site development, parking, arts and culture, transi on between residen al and commercial, residen al inll, comprehensive street improvements that will address elements such as streetligh ng and tra c calming, park connec ons (Sugden Regional Park). South focus: residen al upgrades and a ordability, residen al inll, park access (East Naples Community Park, Bayview Park), wetlands/ ooding considera ons, roadway standards. These improvements will likely require strategic property acquisi on and demoli on of structures for redevelopment. Other relevant ini a ves include addi onal street/transporta on improvements to address elements such as ligh ng and tra c calming, as well as coordina on with County sheri , code enforcement, and housing agencies to address quality and supply of housing and streetligh ng. See Sec on 5.3 for more informa on. Table 5 2 2 (con nued): Status of Key Land Use Areas and Ini a ves of the 2000 Plan 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 914 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan 5 2 8 2000 Plan Projects Status 2019 Redevelopment Area Plan Update Response General Infrastructure Improvements Triangle Stormwater Management Plan Need for stormwater improvements iden ed for en re CRA area, so planning and improvement e orts have included both Triangle and Bayshore neighborhoods, including the following: Stormwater plan created for Gateway Triangle residen al area in 2009 and for Bayshore MSTU area in 2011. Karen Dr stormwater improvements completed in 2017. Pineland Ave stormwater improvements completed. Recommenda on made to update stormwater management plan for the en re CRA area (Sec on 5.3.6) Haldeman Creek and Canal System Dredging Plan Last major dredging project was in 2006. Depth assessment will be conducted for creek, and capital reserves currently being accumulated for future maintenance or dredge e orts. Advisory Board voted to increase millage rate to create dredging plan when major dredge will be needed; the millage increase to 1 mil was approved at the nal budget hearing on September 20, 2018. Recommenda on made to coordinate the capital improvements of the MSTUs, including that used to maintain Haldeman Creek, in a Capital Improvements Plan (Sec on 5.3.7). Roadway Improvements US 41 Zoning Overlay and Landscaping Resurfacing and certain safety improvements currently programmed in FDOT Transporta on Improvement Program. Recommenda on to coordinate on future improvements with FDOT to develop and incorporate a community vision for comprehensive Complete Streets improvements along this corridor (see Sec on 5.3.5). Davis Boulevard Streetligh ng and Zoning Overlay Resurfacing project beginning as part of FDOT Transporta on Improvement Program projects. Recommenda on to coordinate on future improvements with FDOT to develop and incorporate a community vision for comprehensive Complete Streets improvements along this corridor (see Sec on 5.3.5). Bayshore Drive Landscaping Roundabout will be put in at Bayshore and Thomasson as a Bayshore Beau ca on MSTU project. Bayshore Dr needs to be considered for streetscape and roadway updates via the Bayshore Beau ca on MSTU. Recommenda on included to make Complete Streets comprehensive roadway improvements along Bayshore Drive and evaluate opportunity to underground overhead u li es (see Sec on 5.3.5, Sec on 5.3.6, and capital funding in Sec on 5.4). Botanical Gardens Support Botanical Gardens is now located southwest of the Bayshore Drive/Thomasson Drive intersec on. The CRA currently owns the 17.89 Sugden Regional Park; the site is targeted for catalyst development. Specic planning tasks included for the 17 Acre Site that highlight in par cular connec ons to Sugden Regional Park and a performance space (see Sec on 5.3.4 and capital and non capital improvements in Sec on 5.4). Other TIF Funded Projects Table 5 2 2 (con nued): Status of Key Land Use Areas and Ini a ves of the 2000 Plan 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 915 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan529 S mula ng investment and capitalizing on development opportuni es while also providing support and protec ons for exis ng residents Naviga ng various percep ons of and visions for the area and incorpora ng arts and culture into the vision; marke ng this vision Transi on between higher density mul family housing and lower density single family housing Ar s c and cultural elements of the CRA area include murals Sec on 5.2.3 and Sec ons 5.3 and 5.4 provide more informa on on these addi onal considera ons and their basis. Many of the challenges and e orts iden ed in the 2000 Plan are s ll relevant today. The following are some of the major ideas emerging from the Redevelopment Area Plan update process, which provided the basis for the goals, objec ves, and strategies underlying the framework (see Sec on 5.3) for this Redevelopment Area Plan: Improving the compa bility of uses and appearance of the public realm Transi oning between suburban and urban development style Balancing regional vs. local transporta on needs and related transporta on safety concerns along major roadways; incorpora ng a focus on mul modal transporta on Developing in the context of natural condi ons and hazards (wetlands, Coastal High Hazard Area, ooding), including how to address increased density/intensity Capitalizing on the valuable assets of the area or nearby, including parks, natural areas such as the canal system and Naples beaches, proximity to Downtown Naples, and tourism while also crea ng public spaces that can be claimed by the community 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 916 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 917 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan53 This page is inten onally le blank. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 918 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan532 Public Space, Parks, & Open Space Complete Streets & Trail (Neighborhood) Complete Streets (Major) Complete Streets (Major) Monument Sign for Gateway Intersecon Major Corridor Land Use & Design Public Space, Parks, & Open Focus Corridor Transportaon, Connecvity, & Walkability Infrastructure Development The planning framework and elements cover a broad range of themes that make up the overall redevelopment approach. Figure 531 provides a Concept Plan illustrang aspects of the framework through future land use and capital improvements with associated goals that are more capital intensive, including Land Use & Design; Public Space Parks, & Open Space; Development; Transportaon, Connecvity, & Walkability; and Infrastructure. See the map legend on the following page for project descripons, addional capital improvements without specied locaons at this me, and future land use details. The reminder of this chapter provides lays out the framework in more are based on highways, minor arterials, and major arterials in the CRA area. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 919 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 920 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 921 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan May 2019 5 3 5 Project Type Project Name Development A. Land Acquisi on for Community Land Trust Transporta on, Connec vity, & Walkability A. Sidewalk Gap Improvements B. Bicycle Infrastructure C. Street Sign/Waynding Improvements D. General Mul Modal Improvements Infrastructure A. Water Main and Fire Suppression Upgrades B. Stormwater Improvements C. Upgrade Sanitary Sewer Lines Public Space, Parks, & Open Space A. Pocket Park Land Acquisi on & Development B. General Parks Improvements C. Community Safety/Clean Up and Neighborhood Ini a ves General Improvements Projects and ini a ves that are not capital investments include a variety of plans, studies, and grant programs in support of redevelopment or capital project planning throughout the CRA area. These non capital projects and ini a ves include: CRA opera ng expenditures and administra ve updates Land Development Code updates Development support for catalyst development sites Master planning for: Stormwater improvements oriented development and redevelopment e orts Implementa on of Complete Streets projects Community safety and clean up Branding Marke ng and communica ons Water and re infrastructure improvements Feasibility studies, including: General market study/economic prole Bayshore Drive Complete Street technical feasibility Bayshore Drive Complete Streets pilot project Triangle reten on pond improvements Micro enterprise and arts incubator Grants and funding programs, including: Residen al improvements grants/loans Commercial façade improvements Wall and fence funding for areas with incompa ble uses Public art funding Economic development incen ves Mobile home replacements Community Land Trust housing construc on Other a ordable/workforce housing investments Other non capital expenditures that may arise in the future and are not yet iden ed 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 922 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 923 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan 5 3 7 The Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code (LDC) provide tools to shape land use and urban design, which have a direct impact on the built environment of an area. This sec on highlights exis ng condi ons related to various land use types, as well as ways to promote a dened, harmonious, and urban visual and land use character tailored to the CRA area, cul va ng its unique ar s c and cultural iden ty. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 924 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan538 The CRA area has 3,814, dwelling units according to Florida Department of Revenue 2017 data. These units include a range of housing types from mobile to larger single family to mul family homes (see Map 5 3 2 and corresponding images). This diversity of types, when coupled with a range of price points, can accommodate a diversity of residents living in the community. Currently, streets such as Jeepers Drive (picture 3 below) show areas of transi on between larger residen al and smaller residen al, as well as between smaller single family residen al and mul family on nearby streets. The vision set forth in the Redevelopment Area Plan aims to guide these transi ons towards the desired built environment character laid out for di erent sub areas (see Sec on 5.3.8). 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 925 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan 5 3 9 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 926 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan5310 As with housing types, there are a range of commercial types in the CRA area (see Map 5 3 3 and corresponding images). Many commercial sites include on site, street facing surface parking. The area contains two major mall style commercial spaces, Gulfgate Plaza and Courthouse Shadows. Uses range from restaurants and retail stores to heavier uses such as auto services. Industrial uses are also present in the Triangle area and northwest of Sugden Park. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 927 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan 5 3 11 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 928 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan5312 Community oriented uses support community building and provide services via government, faith based, non prot, and other en es. The Redevelopment Area Plan aims to preserve and enhance these uses. Government establishments in the area include the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area o ce, a Naples Fire Rescue sta on, and the County Center (see Map 5 3 4 and corresponding images). Schools in and near the area include Avalon Elementary, Shadowlawn Elementary, and The Garden School of Naples (a Montessori school). There are also various arts oriented spaces, places of worship, and non prot service providers. Evalua ng loca ons for a library or other public mee ng space can also facilitate the addi on of community services and spaces. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 929 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan 5 3 13 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 930 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan5314 Strategy 1:Coordinate with Collier County Growth Management and Zoning Divisions to pilot innova ve land use and zoning approaches to promote more urban style development in the LDC. These approaches might include: Increasing mixed use designa ons Focus increased densi es/intensi es along improved roadways (with considera on of Coastal High Hazard Area restric ons) Roadway design standards to support mul modal transporta on (see Sec on 5.3.5) Reduced building setbacks Zoning for live/work spaces Zoning and incen ves for accessory dwelling units Flexible parking regula ons Strategy 2: In awarding density pool units, establish eligibility requirements and/or performance metrics that promote these urban approaches. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 931 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan 5 3 15 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 932 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan5316 Strategy 1: Use sub cs (see Sec on 5.3.8) to guide land use vision in the CRA area. Strategy 2: Amend the LDC to limit heavy commercial and manufacturing/warehouse/storage uses throughout the CRA area; evaluate incen ves to encourage transi ons away from heavy commercial and manufacturing/warehouse/storage uses. Strategy 3: Iden fy elements in the LDC to create clear transi onal areas and land use bu ers between uses that are incompa ble (see Figure 5 3 2); coordinate bu ers with related improvements, such as landscaping improvements via the Bayshore Beau ca on MSTU. Strategy 4: Provide funding through CRA funded grant programs for transi onal structures (e.g., walls and fences) between incompa ble uses. Provide guidance in the program guidelines to coordinate with related elements, such as design standards and Bayshore Beau ca on MSTU improvements. Strategy 5: Provide clear guidance in the LDC for new and emerging uses to ensure consistency with the respec ve Character Areas. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 933 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan 5 3 17 There are four main types of land use strategies to transi on between di ering land use types (Figure 5 3 2). Factors a ec ng use of any given type might include characteris cs of the par cular site or the general Character Area. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 934 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan5318 Focus: transi on from interior residen al area of Triangle to the major commercial corridors surrounding it Strategies: Put in place land use transi on areas of lighter commercial or mul family residen al near single family residen al areas Promote use of physical barriers/bu ers between heavier commercial uses and residen al uses Limit heavier industrial and commercial uses in the Triangle area Focus: transi on from commercial to residen al and between di erent residen al densi es Strategies: Establish land use transi on areas to transi on from commercial and denser mul family along Bayshore Drive to moderately dense mul family residen al to single family residen al Focus: put in place transi on strategies to mesh new development coming online with exis ng uses Strategies: Establish land use transi on areas Elements to facilitate transi ons can be helpful where there are dissimilar uses, built forms, or development styles. Strategies range from land use bu ers (e.g., gradual transi on in density/intensity, open space bu ers; see Figure 5 3 2), physical barriers (e.g, walls, fences, landscaping), or limita ons placed on uses incompa Map 5 3 5 shows the generalized base zoning districts, highligh ng areas with use boundaries that might benet from transi on strategies. The highlighted areas are described further below. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 935 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan 5 3 19 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 936 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan5320 Iden fying boundaries between di erent exis ng zoned building heights can indicate areas where land use transi on approaches may be helpful. Map 5 3 6 shows the applicable Mixed Use Overlay Districts that provide more detailed design standards for the CRA area with highlighted transi on areas from Map 5 3 4 and maximum zoned heights of buildings in the table below. Note that there are excep ons for certain structures in the code (e.g., church spires, antenna). PUD sites are governed by zoning in their respec ve ordinances. Maximum Zoned Height of Building in Feet House Rowhouse Apartment Mixed Use Commercial Civic & ins tu onal BMUD NC 42 42 42 56 56 42 BMUD W 42 42 42 56 56 42 BMUD R1 35 35 35 35 BMUD R2 35 35 35 35 BMUD R3 35 35 35 35 Mixed Use Overlay Designa on Mobile Home 30 BMUD R4 35 35 GTMUD MXD 42 42 42 56 56 42 GTMUD R 35 35 35 35 Needed Transi on Area 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 937 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan 5 3 21 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 938 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan5322 Strategy 6: Evaluate opportuni es for arts oriented code exibility that will incorporate exis ng arts ac vity such as gallery space. Strategy 1: As part of a CRA specic Arts and Culture Plan (see Sec on 5.3.4, Objec ve 1, Strategy 5), develop a comprehensive design approach for the public realm with reference to specic Character Areas. The approach might consider: Architectural styles, including resilient designs that be er manage natural hazards such as ooding Transi onal elements between Character Area designs, building mass types, etc. (see Sec on 5.3.8) Design considera ons for gateway/focus intersec ons Design considera ons for public art Iden ca on of public art opportuni es and incen ves Design considera ons for streetscape improvements in coordina on with the Bayshore Beau ca on MSTU Master Plan Design considera ons for CRA funded grants for façade and other exterior improvements Incorpora on of urban style development design standards (see Sec on 5.3.2, Objec ve 1) Airport Zone height restric ons Strategy 2: Fund a commercial façade grant program for exterior improvements to commercial buildings not targeted for major redevelopment. A number of buildings in the CRA establish a modern architectural style that the CRA can promote in public realm design; there are a number of residences with a more tradi onal Florida style that the CRA can also promote. Art that is incorporated into private development, but visible in the public realm, can also contribute to the community character conveyed in the physical environment (see the character photos on the facing page). In addi on to architectural style, sign styles can be considered as part of public realm design. Figure 5 3 3 provides poten al sign design op ons for the Bayshore neighborhood of the CRA area, reec ng the style of exis ng infrastructure. The CRA can promote a more modern design for the Triangle area in the commercial areas targeted for redevelopment. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 939 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan 5 3 23 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 940 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan5324 Public realm design in the area is important given the emphasis on arts oriented development and input from public outreach e orts indica ng architectural style as a way of building a sense of place and community. The Bayshore Beau ca on MSTU has contributed signicantly to the design of the southern por on of the CRA area with streetscape improvements including ligh ng, ags, landscaping, and the design of the Bayshore/Thomasson roundabout. The CRA should coordinate with the MSTU for further improvements, including the design of major gateway intersec ons that can include signs and public art (see Map 5 3 7 for opportuni es). Note that gateway intersec on opportuni es north of US 41 would not qualify for Bayshore Beau ca on MSTU funds, yet the northern Triangle area can explore the crea on of its own MSTU to fund these and other types of improvements (see Sec on 5.3.7, Objec ve 3, Strategy 2). MSTU Improvements Gateway Design Opportuni es 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 941 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan 5 3 25 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 942 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan5326 Public space, parks, and open space types of land use that serve an important community building purpose with par cular design considera ons given the variety of ac vity they can support. This sec on focuses on how to ensure accessible, ac vated, and well maintained public spaces, parks, and open space. Strategy 1: Coordinate with Collier County Road Maintenance Division and Parks & Recrea on Division to increase the number and quality of bicycle and pedestrian connec ons 1) between the Bayshore Dr area and neighboring County parks, including Bayview Park, East Naples Community Park, and Sugden Regional Park and 2) running north/south from neighboring County parks to increase accessibility to the Triangle area (see Sec on 5.3.5, Objec ve 1, Strategy 6). Strategy 2: Coordinate with Collier County Road Maintenance Division and Parks & Recrea on Division in conjunc on with Thomasson Ave and Hamilton Ave MSTU improvements to evaluate opportuni es for 1) maintaining car and boat parking at Bayview Park and 2) opera onal maintenance at Bayview Park. Strategy 3: Coordinate with Collier County Public Services Department to evaluate opportuni es for a park and/or public mee ng space (e.g., library) in the CRA area. Strategy 4: Create a site specic park plan for the exis ng reten on pond in the Triangle area. Strategy 5: Evaluate opportuni aces). Strategy 6: Coordinate with Collier County Parks & Recrea on Division on any general parks improvements related to CRA development/ redevelopment sites and e orts, including the 17 Acre Site (see Sec on 5.3.4). Strategy 1: Coordinate with Collier County Parks & Recrea on Division to promote park spaces as venues for CRA community events. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 943 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan 5 3 27 The poten al park design concept shown in Figure 5 3 4 for the Triangle stormwater reten on pond is based on previous planning and design e orts for the pond, with more considera on given to increasing visibility to enhance safety in the pond area (a concern men oned during public outreach). The rendering includes a considera on for iden fying sites for consolidated public parking, which may take the form of a garage. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 944 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan5328 County park that provides inland water access and water recrea on programming. Image source: Collier County Parks & Recrea on Division County park that provides access to Haldeman Creek, the local canals, and the Gulf of Mexico. poten al for design, tra c ow, safety, and ood management improvements. County park that houses 38 pickleball courts for sports tourism and local recrea onal use; hosts the annual US Open Pickleball Championship and other pickleball tournaments. Image source: Collier County Parks & Recrea on Division a non prot 170 acre botanical garden with over 220,000 visitors per year. Also includes mee ng spaces. The Redevelopment Area Plan update process iden ed parks and open spaces as important community assets, providing event spaces and opportuni es to build a sense of place and community. Park access can be improved by providing be er connec ons to parks and capitalizing on opportuni es for new parks (such as at the Triangle reten on pond and small pocket parks). Expansion of the CRA area to include the parks to the east should also be evaluated since it may facilitate making connec ons and other improvements. See Map 5 3 8 for exis ng parks and opportuni es. provide access to the Bayshore Drive commercial area and the Gulf of Mexico. The Haldeman Creek MSTU funds periodic dredging and maintenance. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 945 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan 5 3 29 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 946 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan5330 Strategy 1: Coordinate with the Collier County Sheri ce, Collier County Code Enforcement Division, service providers in the CRA area, and residents and business owners in the CRA area to develop a proac ve community safety and clean up strategy (inclusive of private property along the canal network) with an aim at reducing reliance on case by case enforcement. This e ort should focus on residen al proper es and coordinate with the Community Standards Liaison pilot program of the Collier County Community & Human Services Division. Strategy 2: Iden fy and document a strategy for canal maintenance in the right of way, including seawalls and mangroves, in coordina on with the Haldeman Creek MSTU Advisory Board. Table 5 3 1 indicates the amount of parks and open space that are in and bordering the CRA area. Designa on Loca on Acreage Es mate Total publicly owned open space within CRA area Reten on pond site (northern Triangle area) 6.48 (includes pond) Addi onal open space or green space in the CRA area Botanical Garden (non prot owned) 168 Total open space/green space in CRA area 174.48 Park space adjacent to CRA area Bayview Park East Naples Community Park Sugden Regional Park 6.27 120 173.27 Total park, open, or green space within or adjacent to CRA area 347.75 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 947 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan 5 3 31 Development and redevelopment can improve the quality and aesthe cs of the built environment, as well as generate tax revenue and benets to property owners through increased property values. This development and redevelopment ac vity also needs to include protec ons for exis ng community members who may face burdens from the increase in property values, such as increased costs for renters. This sec on provides an approach to foster and guide private development to enhance community character and provide increased stability and prosperity for community members. Also documented are more specic planning and visioning e orts for two key development opportuni es, at the Mini Triangle and 17 Acre sites. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 948 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan5332 Strategy 1: Create a branding strategy for the CRA area to establish a community vision and character. This strategy should coordinate with the Arts and Culture Plan and the Market Study for the CRA (see Sec on 5.3.4, Objec ve 1, Strategy 5 and Sec on 5.3.4, Objec ve 3, Strategy 1). Strategy 2:Create a marke ng and communica on strategy for the CRA area to communicate vision and character with e ec ve tools (e.g., website, social media, branding materials). This strategy should coordinate with the comprehensive design approach developed for the CRA area (see Sec on 5.3.2, Objec ve 3, Strategy 1), as well as improved communica on e orts between the CRA and the community (see Sec on 5.3.7, Objec ve 1). Strategy 3: Provide CRA administra ve materials (e.g., Advisory Board agendas, budgets, annual reports) in an accessible and easy to understand way. Strategy 4: Coordinate with the Collier County Tourist Development Council, Collier County Parks & Recrea on Division, and other jurisdic ons to promote the CRA area and its local business and commercial establishments as part of tourism development e orts in the area. This should include coordina on with Collier County Parks & Recrea on related to East Naples Community Park master planning and pickleball sports tourism. Strategy 5: Create an Arts and Culture Plan for the CRA area to incorporate into the overall CRA area vision. This e ort should: Consider prior arts and culture planning e orts, such as those related to the Bayshore Cultural District (Resolu on No 2008 60). Incorporate an inventory of exis ng ar s c and cultural features of the community to elevate. Include a comprehensive public realm design approach for the CRA area and sub areas (see Sec on 5.3.2, Objec ve 3, Strategy 1). Consider housing needs and economic incen ves related to arts and culture oriented development (see Sec on 5.3.4, Objec ves 3 and 5). Include administra ve needs of implemen ng the plan (e.g., an arts commi ee, addi onal sta ). Coordinate with countywide arts and culture strategic planning e orts. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 949 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan 5 3 33 Strategy 1: Coordinate with Collier County Zoning Division to clarify LDC requirementsrelated to development in the CRA area, par cularly related to: Rela onship of overlay zoning to base zoning Rela onship of various applicable codes to each other (e.g., LDC, re code, building code) Allowable uses Strategy 2: Coordinate with Collier County Zoning Division to evaluate approaches to streamline and shorten the development review process. Approaches might include: Dedica ng County sta to review projects within the CRA area and expedite them through the development process. Improving coordina on and communica on between en es overseeing applicable codes (e.g., Zoning, Fire Marshall). Iden fying opportuni es to increase reliance on dened criteria for development approval (as opposed to discre onary approval) Encouraging design build approaches. Strategy 3: Establish a formal role for the CRA in the development review process to facilitate development of projects in the CRA area. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 950 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan5334 Strategy 1: Conduct a market study, including informa on on owners of second homes, which is not captured in typical data sets, to determine what development will be supported in the CRA area. Strategy 2: Iden fy incen ves and targeted assistance (see Development Assistance and Incen ves Examples) for a range of development and redevelopment, including considera on of the following types of development and addi onal desirable development supported by the market study: Local neighborhood commercial establishments Social enterprises and business opportuni es for those with tenuous livelihoods Larger catalyst development projects Arts oriented development Strategy 3: Evaluate and amend as needed current grant program o erings to reect new incen ves and assistance approaches from Sec on 5.3.4, Objec ve 3, Strategy 2. Strategy 1:Facilitate tenancy, development, and redevelopment, par cularly for opportuni es along US 41, Linwood Ave and neighboring non residen al areas, and Bayshore Dr, through incen ves and communica on e orts (see Development Assistance and Incen ves Examples). Strategy 2: Con nue to facilitate exis ng catalyst project opportuni es on the Mini Triangle and 17 Acre sites (see Map 5 3 10) to strengthen and solidify development interest in the CRA area. E orts might include assis ng with coordina on of property owners in target areas, nego a ng desired ameni es to be incorporated into proposed development, and providing incen ves (see Development Assistance and Incen ves Examples). Strategy 3: Evaluate alterna ve funding opportuni es, such as private funding and dona ons, for capital projects. Strategy 4: Assess development opportuni es for the Ac vity Center area, including the Courthouse Shadows site. Strategy 5: Evaluate concepts to expand the CRA boundaries . Considera ons might include the incorpora on of new development opportuni es, such as areas along Thomasson Drive, and the incorpora on of County parks. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 951 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan 5 3 35 Density/intensity increases Impact fee o sets or payment over me TIF rebates and TIF money for infrastructure Land acquisi on through CRA for targeted needs, such as parking and stormwater infrastructure, and to facilitate redevelopment Tenant a rac on and reloca on support Micro enterprise incubator and technical assistance support in partnership with other local en es Incubators can provide workspace and assistance to micro enterprises, par cularly small businesses, looking to get their start in the CRA area. The CRA could poten ally partner with exis ng e orts or collaborate on new e orts to support the work of incubators. For example, the Naples Accelerator (h ps://naplesaccelerator.com/) provides o ce space and ameni es and connec ons to local economic resources to assist its member businesses. There may also be interest from other local en es, such as St. Ma incubator. Such partnerships can bring together organiza ons to pool capacity and funding to carry out incubator e orts and can also be used to support ar sts and arts oriented development, a key aspect of the The CRA encourages businesses opera ng in the area to form associa ons and business districts to coordinate development e orts and poten al funding tools such as MSTUs. Such associa ons can also serve as important partners to the CRA in its implementa on of development assistance and incen ves. Areas where these associa ons might be par cularly benecial are among the Bayshore Drive businesses, the Mini Triangle are property owners, and the property owners along Linwood Avenue and Kirkwood Avenue. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 952 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan5336 Figure 5 3 5 provides a general indica on of the development opportuni es in the CRA area, showing vacant land acreage and the corresponding number of vacant parcels by land use type that could poten ally be developed and indica ng that most of the vacant acreage is residen al. Map 5 3 9 indicates where these parcels are located. As the map indicates, the parcel sizes can run fairly small, so assembly may be a considera on for developers. The background analysis for the Redevelopment Area Plan also indicates a sizable number of parcels with structures, par cularly single family and mobile homes, that might benet from upgrades to improve their structural condi on. These e orts should take into account any poten al increases in prices and costs when units are upgraded to avoid pricing out residents who nd the new price and cost points una ordable. Total Vacant Acreage: 186 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 953 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan 5 3 37 Map 5 3 9: Vacant Land Parcels in CRA Area . Note: Vacant ins tu onal land northwest of Bayshore Dr/Thomasson Dr intersec on is coded as Va- cant Ins tu onal but it owned by Ma amy Naples LLC. (Source: 2017 Florida Department of Revenue) 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 954 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan5338 The CRA can facilitate development, redevelopment, and tenancy of vacant spaces through incen ves and improvements to the surrounding areas. Map 5 3 10 and corresponding images show some of the key opportuni es in the CRA area; note that the Mini Triangle site and the 17 Acre Site contain parcels currently owned by the CRA. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 955 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan 5 3 39 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 956 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan5340 Collier County Community & Human Services Division currently oversees a program that uses State Housing Ini a ves Partnership (SHIP) program funds to replace mobile homes with more sturdy single family modular homes in response to hurricane damage. In Everglades City, these homes are elevated on s lts. The Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA may be able to rene this pro gram to meet the needs of the community to encour age replacement with a more suitable building type for the area. The FEMA 50% Rule requires that any exis ng building within an iden ed FEMA Flood Zone will have to be upgraded to meet current ood standards if improve ments are made that are in excess of 50% of the struc ture value. When determining structure value, only the value of the improvement itself (exclusive of land value) is considered. During the building permit review pro cess, the County will require anyone located within a ood zone to go through a review process to ensure that proposed improvements are not worth in excess of 50% of the building value. The CRA may consider devel oping partnerships/grants to assist in replacing struc tures to encourage bringing exis ng buildings up to code and maintain a ordability. Several ci es and coun es in Florida, including Collier County, o er impact fee incen ves for a ordable and/ or workforce housing. In Collier County, for purchase and rental units for households with incomes less than 120% of median income in the county qualify for impact fee deferrals. Deferrals are equivalent to up to 3% of ons, a cap ins tuted to minimize revenue lost through the program. Strategy 1: Establish assistance programs and incen ves to protect and enhance exis ng com munity oriented uses and local neighborhood commercial and single family neighborhoods o the main corridors. Assistance and incen ve dis tribu on might account for building age, struc tural quality, and means of property owners. Strategy 2:In coordina on with the Collier Coun ty A ordable Housing Advisory Commi ee, pro mote strategies to maintain current a ordable housing availability in the CRA while improving baseline quality condi ons. Strategies to consider include: Community land trust Coordina ng with Collier County Com munity & Human Services Division for mobile home upgrades and replace ments with alterna ve unit types (see Housing Assistance and Incen ves Exam ples) Residen al renova on loan/grant pro gram pact fee deferral program for income restricted units (see Housing Assistance and Incen ves Examples) 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 957 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan 5 3 41 The County also limits to 225 the number of rental units receiving deferrals. Impact fees are deferred for owner occupied units un l the owner sells, renances, or moves out of the home, at which me fees are due with interest. Rental unit fees are deferred for a 10 year pe riod. Historically, this level of deferral has allowed the program to defer impact fees on approximately 100 homes per year. A pilot program for payment of impact fees by installments collected through property tax bills (as an alterna ve to making the en re payment up front) was also planned for the Immokalee CRA area. The Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA could support or Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA area; this approach could also be used to incen vize other types of desired development, as well. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 958 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan5342 Having a variety of transporta on op ons that are easy and desirable to use are important for all who live and work in the CRA area. Transporta on systems not only cater to local needs between the CRA area and places such as Downtown Naples and local work places, but also to more regional tra c moving through the CRA area on major roadways. In light of the various needs, this sec on aims to ensure safety, comfort, and convenience for various modes within and connec ng with the CRA area. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 959 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan 5 3 43 Strategy 1: Create a strategy to implement discrete transporta on improvements and more comprehensive Complete Streets corridor improvements. Strategy 2: The e ort undertaken for Strategy 1 should include development of a sidewalk master plan with inclusion of the following: Visibility assessment related to landscaping Considera on of connec ons to neighboring parks (see Sec on 5.3.3, Objec ve 1, Strategy 1 and Strategy 6 in this sec on) Coordina on with roadway and infrastructure improvements planned and/ or approved for implementa on, including those that may stem from this Redevelopment Area Planning process or other agency planning and implementa on e orts (e.g., County and CRA stormwater master planning). Strategy 3: Iden fy opportuni es to coordinate transporta on capital improvements with County/ MPO improvements along major arterials. Strategy 4: Pilot transporta on improvements, such as elements of Complete Streets corridor improvements, elements of Bayshore Dr road diet (tra c lane consolida on), reduced turning radii at intersec ons to slow tra c, and addi onal pedestrian crossings, with temporary installa ons. These e orts should incorporate community input and feedback to gauge response to more urban style development and any par cular concerns to address or opportuni es on which to capitalize. These installa ons can be incorporated into community events that include educa onal elements on, for example, Complete Streets, the Vision Zero e ort to eliminate bicycle and pedestrian fatali es, and roundabouts. Strategy 5: Based on input from temporary installa ons from Strategy 4, move forward with ve ng of Bayshore Dr road diet concept scenarios and tra c analysis. Strategy 6:Evaluate opportuni es for a north/ south bicycle and pedestrian connector in the eastern Bayshore area with connec ons to Sugden Park and East Naples Community Park (see Sec on 5.3.3, Objec ve 1, Strategy 1). on needs of transporta on system users of all ages and abili es, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, motorists, and freight handlers. A transporta on system based on Complete Streets principles can help to promote safety, quality of life, and economic 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 960 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan5344 Map 5 3 11 highlights exis ng transporta on condi ons iden ed by eldwork. Roadways in the CRA area range from large arterials carrying regional tra c to small neighborhood streets, many of which dead end throughout the CRA area. During eldwork, cyclists were noted on the sidewalks of larger arterials such as Davis Boulevard and Airport Pulling Road, and many bikes were parked at Gulfgate Plaza o of US 41. The MPO and FDOT also iden ed Airport Pulling Road and US 41 as high bike/pedestrian crash corridors. Rela ve to other streets, Bayshore Drive has a number of improvements, including bike lanes, sidewalks, and transit shelters, yet it s ll experiences a lack of parking. There are limited pedestrian connec ons to parks from streets o Bayshore Drive; one connec on is at Republic Drive. Note that these exis ng condi ons are a general, preliminary assessment, with more detailed measures of exis ng condi ons such as trip counts and tra c modeling an cipated as part of follow specic evalua on prior to a decision to implement. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 961 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan 5 3 45 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 962 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan5346 Bicycle & Pedestrian Curb extensions General bike accessibility Pedestrian crossing(s) Bike lanes General connec vity, walkability North/south connec vity East/west connec vity Sidewalk(s) Waynding Ligh ng Road diet (lane reduc on) Tra c Tra c circula on along corridor, including intersec ons Tra c calming Connect street Parking Commercial parking Parking including boat parking Fieldwork, discussions with CRA sta , public outreach, and specic project recommenda ons from the 2018 Blue Zones Project/Dan Burden informed loca on specic, discrete transporta on needs and considera ons in the CRA area (Map 5 3 12). Many of these needs and considera ons will be addressed through Complete Streets projects recommended in this Redevelopment Area Plan. Other transporta on improvements such as addressing sidewalk and bike infrastructure gaps, providing parking infrastructure, and providing waynding signs will be addressed through separate project recommenda highways, minor arterials, and major arterials in the ed are generalized along the length of a roadway segment (related needs are those where labels intersect the corridor on Map 5 3 12). Major Corridor Needs Corridor 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 963 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan 5 3 47 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 964 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan5348 The projects shown in Map 5 3 13 are those iden ed in the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organiza 2017/18 to 2021/22 Transporta on Improvement Program (which also features the Collier County ve year program) and the trail recommenda ons from the update process. These projects will thus be overseen by regional and county transporta on agencies. The full set of recommenda ons from the once nalized, should also be considered in conjunc on with transporta on planning and improvements led by the CRA. Major Corridor FDOT TIP Projects US 41 resurfacing US 41 signal ming improvements Davis Boulevard resurfacing MPO Pathways Plan Proposed Trail Improvements Naples Bay Greenway (Sun Trail) County TIP Projects Davis Boulevard/Airport Pulling Road intersec on improvement 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 965 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan 5 3 49 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 966 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan5350 Complete Streets is an approach to comprehensive corridor improvements tailored to the size and land use context of the corridor. This approach can address many of the major needs and considera ons iden ed in Map 5 3 13, including tra c calming, sidewalks, bike lanes, ligh ng, waynding, on street parking, and landscaping. Complete streets improvements can also be coordinated with other infrastructure improvements, such as water main, re suppression, and drainage upgrades. The CRA can take the lead on Complete Streets projects, focusing on the streets listed below categorized. Fieldwork, sta discussions, public outreach, and prior planning e orts informed which streets were targeted for these improvements. Map 5 3 14 shows recommended projects for neighborhood street Suggested improvements for Major Complete Streets corridors may include changes to the roadway for vehicles (such as the addi on of on street parking). Neighborhood Complete Streets & Trails recommenda ons focus primarily on improvements for pedestrians, cyclists, and other ac ve transporta on (see the remainder of Sec on 5.3.5 for examples of suggested improvements). Connec vity in terms of des na ons and network connec ons was a key considera on in selec on and priori za on of these projects. Note that the length of the bicycle and pedestrian trail will depend on considera ons such as available right of way; the Sec on 5.4 capital planning provides an es mate for a sec on between East Naples Community Park and Su extensions that that do not have exis ng right of way. Major Corridor Major Complete Streets I Shadowlawn Drive Bayshore Drive (north of Thomasson Drive) Thomasson Drive Commercial Drive Kirkwood Ave/Kirkwood Ave Connec on to Shadowlawn Drive Pine Street Connec on Neighborhood Complete Streets & Trails Bay Street Danford Street Hamilton Avenue Jeepers Drive Republic Drive Bayshore Drive (south of Thomasson Drive) Bicycle/Pedestrian Trail 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 967 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan 5 3 51 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 968 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan5352 The following images illustrate Complete Streets elements from prior planning e orts for Bayshore Dr and Complete Streets improvements elsewhere. These e orts and examples inspired the renderings of possible transforma ons for Linwood Ave, Bayshore Dr, and Jeepers Dr (shown in Figures 5 3 6 through 5 3 9) suggested as part of this Redevelopment Area Plan update e ort. As corridors for poten al commercial redevelopment, the Linwood Ave and Bayshore Dr renderings highlight an emphasis on ample sidewalk space along the landscaping and storefronts. Linwood Ave might promote a more modern design style for ligh ng and streetscape features as shown in Figure 5 3 6 and poten ally further inspired by the modern style images on page 5 3 22. Bayshore Dr might retain the exis ng style of streetscape elements in the ligh ng and signs. These renderings can provide a star 3 49), with the Linwood Ave design par cularly suited as a basis for the suggested re designs of Commercial Dr and Kirkwood Ave. As a less traveled residen al street type, Jeepers Dr shows how people biking, walking, and playing can share the street space with cars accessing residences. Given that many streets dead end and do not allow for through tra c, more simplied pedestrian infrastructure may be promoted over formal sidewalks. For example, the pedestrian space in the Complete Streets improvement examples (Le image source: Wikimedia Commons) 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 969 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan 5 3 53 rendering might be indicated with road paint. The swales have also been retained for water quality considera ons, but incorporate vegeta on to improve the visual appearance of swales. Porous pavement may also be an op on for the areas where swales are represented, which might require di erent maintenance costs (an aspect that would be addressed with a more detailed follow up design evalua on as noted below). Ligh ng in provided on one side given the limited road space, similar to improvements made on Lunar St in the CRA area. This type of design might serve as a star ng point for the re design of other neighborhood Complete Streets projects (see Map 5 3 49). Note that these proposed cross sec ons are only intended for general, ini al illustra ve purposes; nal designs would need to account for a more detailed study and analysis of factors including engineering considera ons, impacts, mi ga on needs, and poten ally the increase of alterna ve transporta on methods (see Objec ve 2, Strategy 1 of this sec on for examples). For example, a follow up analysis of a lane reduc on proposal on Bayshore Drive would need to account for impacts to Level of Service standards on the roadway and on connec ng roadways such as US 41, air quality, freight and evacua on routes, and a variety of other factors. It would also study whether addi onal easements would be needed or desired for a re design. Pilo ng temporary versions of these improvements also provides a way to vet the design. This plan accounts for this follow up analysis need and pilo ng with budgeted items for a Bayshore Drive technical feasibility study, a Complete Streets Implementa on Plan that would provide a next level feasibility analysis for these projects, and a Bayshore Drive pilot project with opportuni es for addi capital projects budget item (see Sec on 5.4 for more informa on). 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 970 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan5354 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 971 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan 5 3 55 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 972 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan5356 Strategy 1: Evaluate opportuni es for alterna ve transporta on methods (e.g., golf carts, electric shu les, other neighborhood/electric vehicles, shared and/or autonomous vehicles, bikeshare, water borne transporta on), including considera ons for partnerships with neighboring communi es. Strategy 2:Coordinate with Collier County Public Transit & Neighborhood Enhancement Department for transit service and facili es improvements (e.g., more frequent service and transit stop shelters). Strategy 3: Evaluate op on to expand Transporta on Concurrency Excep on Area (TCEA) to include en re CRA area. Strategy 1: Evaluate parking concepts for the Bayshore Dr and Mini Triangle/Linwood Ave commercial areas, which may include: Shared parking with shu le service, par cularly to meet peak season demand Reduced design requirements for parking On street parking as part of the Bayshore Dr road diet Parking garages Parking mi ga on fee (development pays for construc on of public parking in lieu of providing parking spaces) Considera ons for changes in alterna ve transporta on methods such as those noted in Objec ve 2, Strategy 1 of this sec on. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 973 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan 5 3 57 Policy 5.4 of the Transporta on Element in the Growth Management Plan created the South US 41 TCEA. This designa on allows commercial and residen al developments an excep on to mee ng transporta on concurrency standards, which relate to the ming and programming of necessary transporta on facili es to ensure they are generally provided in a meframe comparable to the development. (see Policy 5.3 of the Capital Improvement Element for more details). The strategies developers can use to obtain the excep on are intended to reduce trips or miles traveled in single occupancy vehicles, such as incen ves and ameni es to promote transit, carpooling, telecommu ng, walking, and biking. This Redevelopment Area Plan reinforces these strategies by promo ng mixed used and urban land use types that support alterna ve transporta on (see Sec on 5.3.2). Objec ves 1 and 2 of this sec on also promote improved facili es for walking, bilking, and transit use. A poten al op on to further align the redevelopment e orts of the CRA and the goals of the TCEA is to expand the TCEA to include all of the CRA area, expanding the excep on applicability to further encourage alterna ve transporta on. South US 41 TCEA (Source: Collier County Growth Management Plan, Transporta on Element, Map TR-4) 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 974 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan5358 This study, completed in 2017, included a recommenda on for an improved bicycle and pedestrian pathway on the Gordon River Bridge (5th Avenue/US 41) that connects Downtown Naples and the Triangle area. The proposed design calls for narrower travel lanes and removal of the road shoulder to increase the bicycle and pedestrian pathway to 14 feet on either side of the bridge. If implemented, the responsibility for carrying out the project would be FDOT. Proposed typical sec on for Gordon River Bridge bicycle and pedestrian improvement from 2017 Downtown Naples Mobility and Connec vity Study (Source: City of Naples, h ps://www.naplesgov.com/sites/default/les/lea achments/streets_amp_stormwater/project/3351 city_council_presenta on_201710_nal_revisions.pdf) Strategy 1: Coordinate with the City of Naples to explore and partner on transporta on improvements and approaches serving both Downtown Naples and the CRA area noted in Objec ve 2, Strategy 1 of this sec on. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 975 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan 5 3 59 Infrastructure can be key to facilita ng development, providing the services communi es need to func on. Certain infrastructure, such as for stormwater management, is par cularly important in the CRA area, which grapples with natural environmental factors including storms and ooding but also benets from a healthy natural environment due to quality of life factors and tourism. As a result, the framework for this sec on aims to provide e ec ve infrastructure that preserves environmental and neighborhood design quality through coordinated improvement planning and funding. Strategy 1: Develop a stormwater master plan for comprehensive infrastructure improvements that incorporates considera on for the following: Flood plain designa ons, including FEMA ood designa ons and Coastal High Hazard requirements Building and site plan design to respond to ooding Primary, secondary, and ter ary infrastructure improvements (both short and long term) Poten al for a bicycle and pedestrian pathway in easement of north/south drainage ditch along Sugden Regional Park Shared maintenance and maintenance funding between County and CRA Water quality Use/design of right of way areas on local streets, including an evalua on of turf block (see page 5 3 58) Innova ve techniques to pilot in CRA area, including green infrastructure Strategy 2: Coordinate stormwater infrastructure planning with design of new parks (see Sec on 5.3.3, Objec ve 1). Strategy 3: Integrate green infrastructure improvements into landscaping and drainage improvements, including those funded by the Bayshore Beau ca on MSTU. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 976 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan5360 Green infrastructure aims to reduce stormwater runo and treat it closer to its source while providing environmental, social, and economic benets. The following examples create surfaces or collec on structures that allow stormwater to inltrate the underlying or surrounding ground. They also can help manage stormwater ows and improve water quality of runo and o en can be combined with vegeta on and landscaping. Inltra on basin/reten ponds that collect stormwater and can allow it to inltrate the underlying ground ow through and inltrate the underlying ground inltrate the ground lined channels that collect and convey, slow, and clean water and let it inltrate into the ground Vegetated planter boxes and bulb ltra on areas with raised edges that can be incorporated into roadway design features Tree plan ngs Vegetated inltra on area in roadway bulb-out in Palme o, FL at 10th Ave W and 5th St W (Source: Google Maps, h ps:// www.google.com/maps/@27.5151522,- 82.575633,3a,60y,118.29h,75.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4! 1slahgGjvzSzLDetQ43h5HQg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) Kissimmee Lakefront Park rain gardens (Source: City of Kissimmee, h ps://www.kissimmee.org/Home/Components/News/ News/2208/263?backlist=%2F) Reten on pond ameni es in Tampa at E Dr Mar n Luther King Jr. Blvd and N 19th St (Source: Google Maps, h ps://www.google.com/maps/@27.9815571, -82.4391844,3a,60y,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQJ3uI3LDTatc2Vr7pk g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 977 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan 5 3 61 Strategy 1: Iden fy addi onal funding opportuni es to supplement capital improvements funds (e.g., grants). Strategy 2: Document the project priori za on strategy to upgrade water lines and re suppression systems in coordina on with the City of Naples. Strategy 3: As part of the stormwater master plan (Objec ve 1, Strategy 1 of this sec on), coordinate with Collier County Stormwater Management to integrate CRA stormwater infrastructure planning with County stormwater planning e orts. Strategy 4: As part of the stormwater master plan e ort (Objec ve 1, Strategy 1 of this sec on), coordinate with Collier County Zoning Division to create right of way design guidelines for development that coordinate with Complete Streets concepts for neighborhood streets. Strategy 5: Coordinate with Collier County agencies and u lity providers to iden fy and improve other infrastructure including sanitary sewer lines, roadways that fail to meet minimum standards, and electrical u li es iden ed to be placed underground or relocated. Turf block, shown in the right-of-way area immediately bordering the street in the photo above, has been used in certain developments in the Bayshore neighborhood to allow for use of right-of-way space for park- ing. This op on should be evaluated as part of the right-of-way design considera ons in the stormwater master plan update. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 978 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan5362 Need for culverts for ooding, Reten ng, security, barriers/gates to direct car tra c, pump improvements for ooding issues Flooding issues and need for drainage Flooding issues and need for drainage on side streets o of Bayshore Drive. Note that Pine Tree Drive, Andrews Avenue, and Woodside Avenue have been iden ed as below County standards (involving for example su cient right of way, drainage, paving, or similar elements) in Resolu on 2011 097. These streets should be a focus in stormwater and infrastructure planning to bring them up to standards. Flooding issues and need for drainage on Holly Avenue. Holly Avenue also iden ed as below County standards and in need of road engineering improvements (see Item 4 above). Palme o Court iden ed as below County standards and in need of road engineering improvements (see item 4 above). Upgrades needed to sanitary sewer capacity in the Triangle area to support new development. Opportuni es to place overhead electric u li es on Linwood Avenue and Commercial Drive underground or relocate them. Stormwater and ooding are major challenges in the CRA area, requiring special a en on be paid to stormwater management projects. The CRA has already overseen a successful drainage improvement project on Karen Drive, and moving forward, will coordinate with the County Stormwater Management Sec on. Map 5 3 15 shows where further stormwater management improvements are needed based on public outreach. Addi onal needs should be iden ed through an updated stormwater master plan for the area. Other iden ed infrastructure needs on the map include upgrading certain roads to meet County standards, upgrading capacity of sanitary sewer infrastructure in certain areas, and placing underground or reloca ng overhead electric u li es in certain areas. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 979 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan 5 3 63 6 7 9 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 980 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan5364 The City of Naples provides water and water infrastructure for the CRA area, which also supports re suppression systems such as re hydrants. The re suppression infrastructure can inuence the insurance ra ngs for an area. On a scale of 1 to 10 (with 1 being the best), the CRA area currently has an Insurance Service O ce (ISO) ra ng of 4. according to the Greater Naples Fire Rescue District. In prac ce, the District typically assigns ra ngs of 4, 9, or 10. The City is currently in the process of upgrading neighborhood water lines to support hydrants for re suppression. Areas highlighted in red on Map 5 3 16 indicate water mains that do not meet the standard re ow requirements ble water model. These mains have poten al for replacement to upgrade for re ow improvements. However, note that other sec ons of the water mains in the CRA area are older and will need to be replaced eventually. There is con nued interest on the part of the CRA to iden fy and obtain grants to complete this work in partnership with the City of Naples. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 981 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan 5 3 65 Areas highlighted in red indicate water mains that do not meet the standard re ow requirements determined by the City of model. These mains have poten al for replacement to upgrade for re ow improvements. However, note that other sec ons of the water mains in the CRA area are older and will need to be replaced even tually. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 982 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan5366 implementa on is important, as is the way it carries out this planning and implementa on. In view of the diversity of communi es living and working in the CRA area, this sec on lays out a framework to carry out CRA area planning and implementa on e orts to engage and serve the various communi es within the CRA area. Strategy 1: As part of the marke ng and communica on strategy (see Sec on 5.3.4, Objec ve 1, Strategy 2), evaluate communica on mechanisms and tools that will most e ec vely communicate with the various communi es in the CRA area. Strategy 2:Coordinate with schools and other community partners to improve outreach and communica on between the CRA and harder to reach popula ons. Strategy 3: Provide mul lingual communica ons and materials. Strategy 4: Create a CRA specic Capital Improvement Plan to iden fy, priori ze, and e ec vely communica on near term capital improvements . Coordinate with MSTUs opera ng in the CRA area for relevant capital improvement projects. Strategy 1: Account for both need based and geographic considera ons in the distribu on of planning and implementa on e orts. Strategy 2: Iden fy street blocks for targeted comprehensive improvements, with a focus on blocks that have already received some improvements and considera on for balanced distribu on of these targeted blocks throughout the en re CRA area. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 983 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan 5 3 67 Strategy 3: Update rules and procedures for the CRA Advisory Board for legal consistency and with considera on given to a balanced distribu on of planning/implementa on e orts and diverse representa on. Strategy 1: Incorporate Haldeman Creek and Bayshore Beau ca on MSTU Advisory Boards into planning and implementa on processes for CRA improvements. Strategy 2: Explore the op on of crea ng an MSTU for capital improvements in the Triangle area north of US 41. In addi on to a diversity of communi es in the CRA area, there is also a diversity of built character. This sec on tailors the thema c goals, objec ves, and strategies of the previous sec ons to specic character areas within the CRA area as a whole. The character areas numbered on the Map 5 3 17 are dened by the land use characteris cs discussed in the preceding maps. Key focus nodes, intersec ons, and corridors within the character areas that have poten al for redevelopment are noted on the map with the asterisks and do ed lines. For each Character Area, a brief descrip on is provided as well as a focus for redevelopment e orts to priori ze framework elements for each area. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 984 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan5368 Focus Corridor Focus Development Node/Intersec on Mini Triangle/Davis The Mini Triangle, including CRA owned parcel, is a major commercial redevelopment opportunity and Focus Development Node Corridor commercial along Davis Linwood Avenue another poten al area for redevelopment. Shadowlawn Primarily a residen al neighborhood with mix of apartments/duplexes and single family homes around Shadowlawn Elementary Borders US 41/Bayshore Drive Focus Intersec on (asterisk), a gateway between north and south sec ons of CRA area Airport Pulling Mix of corridor commercial, larger big box style retail, and County Center Part of area currently designated as an Ac vity Center in Future Land Use Map Tamiami Corridor commercial and residences, including two major malls, Gulfgate Plaza and Courthouse Shadows) Borders US 41/Bayshore Drive Focus Intersec on (asterisk), a gateway between north and south sec ons of CRA area Windstar Residen al is primarily condos and single family homes in gated communi es Includes golf course designated as a commercial use North Bayshore Focus Corridor along Bayshore Drive with neighborhood commercial (including Haldeman Creek Entertainment District near Creek) Mix of mul and single family residen al Focus Intersec on at Bayshore/Thomasson with planned roundabout CRA owned Focus Development Node (17 Acre Site) South Bayshore Primarily single family residen al neighborhood with Naples Botanical Garden Wetland considera ons for development 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 985 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan 5 3 69 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 986 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan5370 The following provides a focus of redevelopment for each Character Area based on the specic characteris cs described for Map 5 3 17 and the most relevant strategies. Urban style mixed use commercial redevelop ment, including capitaliza on on the Mini Triangle as a catalyst development site and urban style parking solu ons Park development at reten on pond site Complete Streets design and commercial redevel opment along Linwood Ave and other nearby commercial roadways; pedestrian scale street de sign between Mini Triangle, Linwood Ave, and the proposed reten on pond park Improved access to Mini Triangle development from US 41, Davis Blvd, and Linwood Ave Mul modal connec vity: Across Davis Blvd Between Mini Triangle, Linwood Ave, pro posed reten on pond park, and eastern Triangle neighborhood To Downtown Naples poten ally via Davis Blvd, US 41, and Gordon River Bridge im provements Addi onal infrastructure improvements: sanitary sewers, electrical, stormwater Residen al structural enhancement and upgrades Avoidance of incompa ble uses Transi onal elements between di erent uses Inll development on vacant residen al lots Flooding and drainage on neighborhood streets Complete Street improvements along Shadow lawn Drive Transi ons between residen al neighborhoods and commercial development Eventual street enhancements, par cularly con nec vity across Airport Pulling Rd Commercial façade improvements Connec vity to Downtown Naples via US 41 Redevelopment of Courthouse Shadows Tenant opportunity at Gulfgate Plaza Complete Streets and MSTU improvements along major community roadways, including Bayshore Drive, Thomasson Drive, and Hamilton Avenue Access to Bayview Park Corridor commercial development along Bayshore Drive, including Haldeman Creek Entertainment District near Creek and crea ve parking solu ons Larger redevelopment opportuni es of 17 Acre Arts and culture oriented development Transi onal elements between corridor commer cial and residen al areas in along Bayshore Drive and Thomasson Drive Development of vacant residen al lots Complete Street design along Bayshore Drive and 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 987 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan 5 3 71 Thomasson Drive, including Bayshore Drive/ Thomasson Drive roundabout Neighborhood Complete Streets and trails Connec ons between Sugden Regional Park and CRA area Water main and re suppression upgrades Flooding and drainage on neighborhood streets Mobile home and single family home residen al improvements, upgrades, a ordability Development of vacant residen al lots Access to Bayview Park Connec ons between CRA and uses to the east, including East Naples Community Park Wetland, ooding, and site prepara on considera ons for development Roadway improvements to meet County engineer ing standards Neighborhood Complete Streets 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 988 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan5372 This page is inten onally le blank. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 989 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 990 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) PRIORITIZATION PLAN -- 5.4 5.4.1 Prioritization of Projects & Initiatives - 5.4.2 Financing Plan - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 991 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) PRIORITIZATION PLAN -- 5.4 -- 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 992 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) PRIORITIZATION PLAN -- 5.4 -- -- -- $3,927,000 $4,128,000 $4,361,000 $0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000 $4,000,000 $4,500,000 $5,000,000 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 Low Medium High 2 0 18: Ba s e Yea r 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 993 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) PRIORITIZATION PLAN -- 5.4 -- 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 994 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) PRIORITIZATION PLAN -- 5.4 - 5.4.3 Projects & Initiatives Prioritization - - - - - - -- ----- -- -- -- - 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 995 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) PRIORITIZATION PLAN -- 5.4 Short Term (1-5 Years) Capital Projects - - - - - - - - -- - - 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 996 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) PRIORITIZATION PLAN -- 5.4 Non-Capital Expenditures - - - -- - - - -- - - 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 997 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) PRIORITIZATION PLAN -- 5.4 Long-Term (After 11 Years) Capital Projects - - - -- - - - - - - - - 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 998 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) PRIORITIZATION PLAN -- 5.4 Non-Capital Expenditures - - - 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 999 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) PRIORITIZATION PLAN -- 5.4 -- --- - - --- - - - - 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 1000 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) PRIORITIZATION PLAN -- 5.4 -- La nd U se & Ur ba n D es ign Proj e c t s T ot al Short T er m (1-11 Year s )Long-T e r m (Af t e r 11 Ye ars)1 G at e way Int e rs e c t ion D es ign I mprov e m e nt s G at e way Si g n - D av is Blv d/Ai r por t P ulling R d $15,000 $15,000 G at e way Si g n - D av is Blv d/ S ha dowlawn D r $15,000 $15,000 G at e way Si g n - D av is Blv d/US 41 $15,000 $15,000 St r e et S ign/W ay f i nding I m pr ov e m e nt s W ay fi nding Sign Im prov e m ent s $52,500 $52,500 $9 7,500 $97,500 $0 Publ ic Spac e , P ar k s, & Ope n S pac e P r oj e c t s T ot al Short T er m (1-11 Year s )Long-T e r m (Af t e r 11 Ye ars)1 Park I m prove m e nt s T riangle R e t e nt io n P ond I m pr ov e me nt s $818,049 $818,049 Land Ac qui sit ion f or Poc k et Par k s (2 park s )$937,500 $937,500 D e v elopm e nt of Poc ke t P a r k s (2 park s )$163,178 $163,178 Pub lic S pac e I mprov em e nt s C om m uni t y Safe t y /C le an-Up and N eighbor hood I nit iat iv e s G e ner al I m pr ov e me nt s $87,500 $25,000 $62,500 $2,006,227 $25,000 $1 ,98 1,227 Dev e lopm ent Pr oj e c t s T ot al S hor t T e rm (1-5 Years )Long-T e r m (Af t e r 11 Ye ars)1 Land Ac qui sit ion f or C omm unit y Land T rus t $1,125,000 $500,000 $625,000 $1,125,000 $500,000 $625,000 S ub-T ot al S ub-T ot al S ub-T ot al Nor t h of U S 41 (T riangle) 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 1001 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) PRIORITIZATION PLAN -- 5.4 -- T r ans port at ion, C onne c t iv it y , & W alk abilit y P r oj e c t s T ot al S hor t T e r m (1-11 Year s )Long-T e r m (Af t e r 11 Ye a r s )1 Co m ple t e St r ee t s - M aj or Linw ood A v e (Phas e I)$1,674,075 $1,674,075 S hadow law n Dr - I ns t allat ion of S t r ee t l ight s $412,500 $412,500 Co m m e rc ial D r $1,903,219 $1,903,219 Kir k wo od Av e /Ki r k w ood Av e C onnec t i on $2,177,813 $2,177,813 Pine S t r e et C onnec t i on $2,210,891 $2,210,891 Co m ple t e St r ee t s & T rails - N e ighborhood Linw ood A v e (Phas e II )$2,224,400 $2,224,400 Park ing S urfac e Park ing Lot - Land A c quis it io n $937,500 $937,500 land ac quis it ion c os t $439,113 $439,113 Co m m e rc ial Par k ing G ar a g e (pos s ibly on s urfac e lot ) $11,898,125 $11,898,125 G e ne r al M ult i-M odal I m pr ov e m e nt s G e ne r al Side w alk /B ic y c le I nf rast r uc t ur e Im prov e m ent s $2,775,449 $430,622 $2,344,827 Ot he r G e ne ral Mult i-M odal I m pr ov e m e nt s $875,000 $250,000 $625,000 $27,52 8,0 83 $2,354 ,6 97 $25,17 3,386 In fr a s t r uc t ur e Pr oj ec t s T ot al S hor t T e r m (1-11 Year s )Long-T e r m (Af t e r 11 Ye a r s )1 Ot he r I nfr as t r uc t ur e I m prov e m ent s U pgrade S anit a r y Se w e r Line s $1,000,000 $1,000,000 S t or m wat e r I nfr as t ruc t ur e U pgr ade s /I m prov e m ent s $7,218,750 $250,000 $6,968,750 U nde r ground U t il it y Li ne s - Linw ood Av e $896,070 $896,070 U nde r ground U t il it y Li ne s - C om m e r c ial D r $237,926 $237,926 Wat e r Line and Fir e Suppr e s s ion U pgra de s $4,836,303 $482,801 $4,353,502 $14,18 9,0 49 $1,732 ,8 01 $12,45 6,248 T ot al No r t h $44,94 5,8 59 $4,709 ,9 98 $40,23 5,861 1 Overall costs increased by 25% to account for annual increases Sub-T ot al Sub-T ot al 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 1002 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) PRIORITIZATION PLAN -- 5.4 -- 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 1003 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) PRIORITIZATION PLAN -- 5.4 -- T r ans por t at ion, Conne c t iv it y , & W alk abilit y Proj e c t s T ot a l S hor t T e rm (1-11 Ye ar s )Long-T e rm (Aft e r 11 Ye ar s )1 C om ple t e St r e e t s - M aj or 4 1 a nd T hom as s on 2 $3,125,000 $3,125,000 T hom as on D r an d Hamilt on Im prov em e nt s 2 $500,000 $500,000 C om ple t e St r e e t s & T rails - N e ighborhoo d B ic y c le an d pe dest r ian t rail along S ug de n dr a inage dit c h2 $428,340 $428,340 Jee per s D r C omple t e S t re e t I m pr ove m ent s 2 $491,849 $491,849 R e pu blic Dr Com ple t e S t r e e t s im pr ov e m ent s 2 $506,849 $506,849 Danfor d S t C omple t e S t re e t s 2 $689,329 $689,329 B a y St C omp le t e St re et Im pr ov e m en t s 2 $491,849 $491,849 B a y shore D r C om ple t e S t r ee t - T hom as son D r /Holly Av e 2 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 Park ing Surfac e Park ing Lot at B ay s hore and C oc o $351,290 $351,290 C om m e r c ial Park ing G arage (pos s ibly on sur f a c e lot ) $9,893,500 $9,893,500 G e ne r al R oad E ng ine e r ing S t anda r d I m pro v e m e nt s Dr 2 $346,649 $346,649 G e ne r al R oad E ng ine e r ing I m pr ov e m ent s - Andr ew s Dr 2 $346,649 $346,649 G e ne r al R oad E ng ine e r ing I m pr ov e m ent s - W oods ide Av e 2 $433,312 $433,312 G e ne r al R oad E ng ine e r ing I m pr ov e m ent s - Holly Av e 2 $433,312 $433,312 G e ne r al R oad E ng ine e r ing I m pr ov e m ent s - P a lme t t o C t 2 $213,371 $213,371 G e ne r al M ult i-M odal I m pr ov e m ent s G e ne r al Side w a lk /B ic y c le I nfr as t r uc t ur e Im pr ov em en t s 2 $2,775,449 $430,622 $2,344,827 Ot her G e ne r al M ult i-M oda l I m pr ov e m ent s 2 $875,000 $250,000 $625,000 $24,401,7 48 $4,405,08 8 $1 9,996 ,660Sub-T ot al 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 1004 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) PRIORITIZATION PLAN -- 5.4 I nfras t r uc t ur e Pr oj e c t s T ot al Short T e r m (1-11 Ye ar s )Long-T e rm (Af t e r 11 Year s )1 Ot he r I nfr as t r uc t ur e I m pr ov e m e nt s St or m wat er I nf r as t r uc t ur e U pgr ade s /I mp r ov e me nt s 2 $5,250,000 $250,000 $5,000,000 W at e r Line a nd Fire Suppre s s ion U pg r ade s $7,221,510 $1,542,894 $5,678,617 U nde rgr ound U t ilit y Lines - B ay s hor e Dr 2 $2,775,000 $2,775,000 $15,246,51 0 $1,7 92,8 94 $1 3,453 ,617 $45,878,93 6 $7,7 90,4 81 $3 8,088 ,455 $90,824,79 5 $12,5 00,4 80 $7 8,324 ,316 $28,616,11 6 $21,8 81,1 16 $6,735 ,000 $119,440,91 1 $34,3 81,5 95 $8 5,059 ,316 1 Overall costs increased by 25% to account for annual increases 2 Potentially MSTU-eligible project; requires coordination and approval of Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory Board. T ot al S out h Ov e r all C apit a l C os t s T ot a l N on-C apit a l C os t s T ot al T ot al C os t s S ub-T ot al -- 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 1005 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) PRIORITIZATION PLAN -- 5.4 -- Proje c t T ot al S hort T e rm (1-11 Ye ar s ) L ong-T e rm (Aft er 11 Ye ar s )1 $25,000 $25,000 St a f f a n d O p er a t i n g (s a l a r i es , b en ef i t s , r en t , et c.)2 $16,626,116 $16,626,116 La n d D eve l o p m en t C o d e U p d a t es - b a s ed o n r eco mm en d a t i o n s fr o m C R A P l a n U p d a t e $100,000 $75,000 $25,000 Mi n i T r i a n g l e Devel o p men t S u p p o r t $500,000 $500,000 17 -A c r e Devel o p men t S u p p o r t $500,000 $500,000 Ga t ew a y P r o p er t y S u p p o r t $100,000 $100,000 St o r mw a t er Ma s t er P l a n U p d a t e $200,000 $200,000 Ar t s a n d Cu l t u r e P l a n f o r CR A $75,000 $75,000 Co mp l et e S t r eet s Imp l emen t a t i o n P l a n $50,000 $50,000 & Recr ea t i o n Di vi s i o n $25,000 $25,000 Co mmu n i t y S a f et y & C l ea n u p S t r a t eg y t o a d d r es s co d e en fo r c emen t i s s u es an d c o m mu n i t y s a f et y . $15,000 $15,000 Ma r k et i n g , , e-b l a s t temp l a t es , ma r k et i n g ma t er i a l s , et c . $50,000 $50,000 Ma r k et S t u d y /E c o n o mi c P r o fi l e $50,000 $50,000 Ba y s h o r e Dr i ve T ech n i ca l F ea s i b i l i t y S t u d y $40,000 $40,000 B a y s h o r e Dr i ve P i l o t p r o j ect $15,000 $15,000 Wa t er & u p d a t ed a n d p h a s i n g $50,000 $50,000 Tr i a n g l e R et en t i o n P o n d F ea s i b i l i t y S t u d y $25,000 $25,000 Mi cr o en t er p r i s e a n d a r t s i n c u b a t o r S t u d y f o r co n c ep t s a n d i mp l emen t a t i o n $20,000 $20,000 O t h er n o n -c a p i t a l o p er a t i o n s a n d s t u d y ex p en d i t u r es $500,000 $250,000 $250,000 Proje c t T ot al S hort T e rm (1-11 Ye ar s ) L ong Ter m (Aft er 11 Ye ar s )1 R es i d en t i a l G r a n t /- f a mi l y h o mes $375,000 $125,000 $250,000 C o mmer ci a l F a ça d e P r o g r a m $750,000 $250,000 $500,000 W a l l & i n co mp a t i b l e u s es $375,000 $125,000 $250,000 $225,000 $75,000 $150,000 l i s t ed i n Devel o p men t S ect i o n $375,000 $125,000 $250,000 Mo b i l e H o me R ep l a cem en t F u n d $1,500,000 $500,000 $1,000,000 C o mmu n i t y L a n d Tr u s t H o u s i n g C o n s t r u c t i o n $4,800,000 $1,800,000 $3,000,000 O t h er A f f o r d a b l e/W o r k f o r ce H o u s i n g In ves t men t s $1,250,000 $250,000 $1,000,000 T otal s $28 ,616,1 16 $21,881 ,116 $6,7 35,000 1 Assumes a 25% cost increase to account inflation and other potential cost increases 2 Assumes no staff and operating costs after the end of the TIF collection period in 2030 G r ant s and Programs Non-C apit al E x pe ndi ture s (St udi e s, Plans, Ot he r) O per ations and St udi es 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 1006 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) PRIORITIZATION PLAN -- 5.4 -- 5.4.4 Coordination & Partnerships - - - - - - - - - - 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 1007 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) PRIORITIZATION PLAN -- 5.4 --- - - - -- - - - -- -- - 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 1008 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan5419 This page is inten onally le blank. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 1009 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 1010 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan551 Community redevelopment areas are created on the basis of a nding of blight or slum condi ons, as noted in Sec on 163.355 of Florida Statute. Table 5 2 1 provided detailed blight condi ons for the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA area, summarizing informa on from the 2000 Plan. Table 5 5 1 shows how the framework in this Redevelopment Area Plan addresses the main blight factors iden ed. Related capital and non capital projects can also be found in Sec on 5.4. In addi on, sec ons 163.360 and 163.362 of Florida Statutes contain specic requirements for community redevelopment plans. Tables 5 5 2 and 5 5 3 provide an overview of the requirements from these statutes and the loca on in this Redevelopment Area Plan where the relevant informa on can be found to sa sfy these requirements. This Redevelopment Area Plan sets forth a vision for the CRA area centered on fostering more urban style development, including mul modal corridors, mixed use projects, and building out to allowable densi es. The Collier County Growth Management Plan largely supports this vision with the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay provisions and the Ac vity Center designa on. The Mixed Use overlays provided in the Land Development Code further support these e orts. Development and redevelopment are thus largely intended to be completed within the provisions of the Growth Management Plan as they exist now or indicate where future amendments may be needed in order to carry out implementa on of ac on items. In the future, the Redevelopment Agency may choose to pursue a program of property acquisi on and/or consolida on to realize the redevelopment objec ves. These objec ves might relate to facilita ng private development and providing iden ed needed public uses. If a property is designated for acquisi on, the process must comply with County requirements and/ or State statutes. The Redevelopment Agency is authorized to demolish, clear, or move buildings, structures, and other improvements from any real property acquired in the redevelopment project area, subject to obtaining necessary permits. The CRA may also engage in or assist in site prepara on improvements on proper es it already owns or proper es it acquires in the future to facilitate development. Other improvements include general infrastructure and streetscape improvements that indirectly support development. See Sec on 5.4.3 for those improvements that are planned for the CRA to fund. All of these improvements are subject to obtaining necessary permits. Sec es that governs this area. No Growth Management Plan or Land Development Code changes were brought through an approval process as part of this planning e ort, and no Land Development Code or Comprehensive Plan changes are being adopted with the adop on of this Redevelopment Area Plan. However, recommended changes will be brought for ini al consistency review by Collier County sta and the Collier County Planning Commission following adop on of this plan. As noted in Sec on 5.5.4, no Land Development Code or Comprehensive Plan changes are being adopted with the adop on of this Redevelopment Area Plan. Consequently, the Redevelopment Area Plan will follow the land uses, densi es, and building requirements provided in the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code for the me being. However, recommended changes will be brought forth for ini al consistency review by Collier 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 1011 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan 5 5 2 Main Issue Relevant Plan Sec on(s) Predominance of defec ve or inadequate street layout Sec on 5.3.5 addresses street design primarily with Complete Streets ini a ves; there are addi onal improvements for addressing bicycle and pedestrian gaps, commercial parking need, and addi onal bicycle and pedestrian connec ons. Faulty lot layout in rela on to size, adequacy, accessibility, or usefulness Sec on 5.3.4 focuses on specically on facilita ng private development. As part of these e orts, the CRA can acquire property to merge lots and make them more easily developed. Addi onally, Sec on 5.3.2 lays out examples of mul family residen al that provide examples to achieve higher residen al densi es where approved densi es are not realized. Unsanitary or unsafe condi ons Sec ons 5.3.3 and 5.3.4 contain strategies to address structural upgrades and public realm clean up and improvements. Sec ons 5.3.2 and 5.3.4 also address residen al types and approaches to a ordability that can address overcrowding. Sec on 5.3.5 highlights ligh ng and other transporta on safety improvements, par cularly for cyclists and pedestrians. Deteriora on of site or other improvements (drainage and surface water management) Sec on 5.3.6 focuses on infrastructure improvements, including those for stormwater. Other problems: Lack of right of way for Shadowlawn Drive improvements Sec on 5.3.5 includes improvements for Shadowlawn Drive. Other problems: Lack of public transporta on Sec on 5.3.5 includes a coordina on strategy for public transit in the CRA area. Other problems: housing a ordability Sec on 5.3.4 includes example strategies to address housing a ordability issues. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 1012 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan553 Sec on 163.360, F.S. Requirements Relevant Redevelopment Area Plan Sec on Conformity to the Growth Management Plan Sec on 5.5.2 Zoning and planning changes Sec on 5.5.4 Land uses, maximum densi es, and building requirements Sec on 5.3.1, Maps 5 3 5 and 5 3 6, Sec on 5.5.5; for general considera ons to guide these requirements, see Sec on 5.3.2 Land acquisi on, demoli on, clearance and site prepara on, redevelopment, improvements, and rehabilita on proposed to carry out the Redevelopment Area Plan Sec ons 5.4.3 and 5.5.3 A ordable housing provision Sec on 5.3.4 Objec ve 5 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 1013 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan 5 5 4 Sec on 163.362, F.S. Requirements Relevant Redevelopment Area Plan Sec on Legal descrip on of CRA area boundaries and reason behind establishing such boundaries Resolu on 2000 82, Exhibit A at end of this document and Resolu on 2000 83 Approximate amount of open space to be provided shown by diagram and in general terms Sec on 5.3.3 Table 5 3 1 and Map 5 3 8 Property intended for parks and recrea on space shown by diagram and in general terms Sec on 5.3.3 Map 5 3 8 Street layout and property intended for streets shown by diagram and in general terms Sec on 5.3.5 Map 5 3 14 Limita ons on the type, size, height, number, and proposed use of buildings shown by diagram and in general terms Sec on 5.3.1, Maps 5 3 5 and 5 3 6, Sec on 5.5.5; for general considera ons to guide these requirements, see Sec on 5.3.2 The approximate number of dwelling units shown by diagram and in general terms Sec on 5.3.2 Map 5 3 2 Replacement housing and reloca on Sec on 5.3.4, Sec on 6 Property intended for public u li es shown by diagram and in general terms Sec on 5.3.6 Maps 5 3 15 and 5 3 16 Property for public improvements of any nature shown by diagram and in general terms Sec on 5.3.1 Map 5 3 1 , Sec on 5.4.2; addi onal details in Sec on 5.3.2 Map 5 3 7, Sec on 5.3.3 Map 5 3 8, Sec on 5.3.4 Map 5 3 10, Sec on 5.3.5 Maps 5 3 12 and 5 3 14, Sec on 5.3.6 Maps 5 3 15 and 5 3 16 Neighborhood impact element describing impacts on residents of CRA area and surrounding areas in terms of reloca on, tra c circula on, environmental quality, availability of community facili es and services, e ect on school popula on, and other ma ers a ec ng the physical and social quality of the neighborhood Sec on 5.5.6 Publicly funded capital improvements to be undertaken in the CRA area Sec on 5.4.2 Safeguards, controls, restric ons/covenants Sec on 5.5.7 Replacement housing for reloca on of displaced persons from housing facili es Sec on 6 Residen al use element Sec on 5.3.2, Sec on 5.3.4 Objec ve 5 Projected costs of redevelopment Sec on 5.4.3 Redevelopment Area Plan dura on and me certain for redevelopment nanced by increment revenues Sec on 1.6 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 1014 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan555 County sta and the Collier County Planning Commission. The Redevelopment Area Plan focuses on improving structural quality of buildings, compa bility of uses, and urban design, as well as promo ng more urban style development and mul modal transporta on. As of right now, there is housing available at lower income levels, yet this may be due to lower structural quality based on ndings from the background analysis for the Redevelopment Area Plan. As improvements are made in the area, there is a poten al risk of property values rising to make housing substan ally less a ordable. Consequently, protec ve measures are being considered to maintain the a ordability of these units while improving their quality (see Sec on 5.3.4, Objec ve 5). Temporary reloca on of residents in lower quality units may be required to make building improvements. An addi onal considera on for lower income households with improvements to the CRA area is the availability of community facili es and services. These uses may also risk displacement if property values increase rapidly or drama cally. This Redevelopment Area Plan includes provisions to support community oriented uses that include these facili es and services so that they can remain a part of the community (see Sec on 5.3.4, Objec ve 3, Strategy 2). With more urban style development and mul modal improvements, tra c circula on may change. There may be increased conges on on roadways and at major state road intersec ons in making them safer for non automobile modes and pursuing catalyst development opportuni es. Any development would need to go through the exis ng Collier County process to assess and mi gate for Level of Service changes on roadways. Ensuring low cost transporta on alterna ves may also support a ordable mobility for lower income households and community members. Regarding impacts on other facili es, such as schools, any new development would need to go through the exis ng Collier County process to assess and mi gate for Level of Service changes. Regarding environmental quality, water quality is a key considera on for stormwater management improvements. Water quality impacts can be evaluated through exis ng Collier County processes. Addi onally, this Redevelopment Area Plan encourages green infrastructure techniques that may help provide certain levels of localized water treatment and ground inltra on prior to arriving at major collector sites. Redevelopment ac vi es iden ed in this Redevelopment Area Plan will not be ini ated un l they are found to be consistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan and applicable land development regula ons. The Community Redevelopment Agency, working collabora vely with County agencies, may propose amendments to the Growth Management Plan and the Land Use Development Code, including design criteria, building heights, land coverage, setback requirements, special excep ons, tra c circula on, tra c access, and other development and design controls necessary for proper development of public and private projects. To leverage the increment revenues, Collier County may consider non ad valorem assessments. For example, during the Redevelopment Area Plan update process, the County was working on a stormwater u lity fee that, if adopted, would apply to the CRA area. The imposi on of special assessments for capital improvements and essen al services is covered by well se led case law and specic statutory provisions authorizing collec on of non ad valorem assessments on the same bill as ad valorem taxes. Such provisions require extraordinary no ce to all a ected property owners. Issues concerning restric ons on any property acquired for community redevelopment purposes and then returned to use by the private sector will be addressed 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 1015 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan 5 5 6 on a case by case basis to ensure all ac vi es necessary to perpetuate the redevelopment ini a ve are advanced in a manner consistent with this Redevelopment Area Plan and any amendment to it. Such restric ons or controls would be expected in the form of covenants on any land sold or leased for private use as provided for in the Community Redevelopment Act, Sec on 163.380, F.S. To assure that redevelopment will take place in conformance with the projects, objec ves and strategies expressed in this Redevelopment Area Plan, the Redevelopment Agency will u lize the regulatory mechanisms used by the County to permit development and redevelopment within its jurisdic on. These mechanisms include but are not limited to the Growth Management Plan; the Land Development Code; adopted design guidelines; performance standards; and County authorized development review, permi ng, and approval processes and any other adopted codes, standards, and policies. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 1016 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Plan557 This page is inten onally le blank. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 1017 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 1018 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) TAX INCREMENT & MSTU ESTIMATES -- 5.6 5.6.1 Tax Increment Financing ---- Scenario #1 - 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 1019 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) TAX INCREMENT & MSTU ESTIMATES -- 5.6 Scenario #2 Scenario #3 5.6.2 Municipal Service Taxing Units (MSTUs) -- ---- -- -- -- 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 1020 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) TAX INCREMENT & MSTU ESTIMATES -- 5.6 -- Fund 001 Fund 111 Fund 001 Fund 111 Total 2018 $701,076,000 $412,995,000 - ---- 2019 $742,976,000 $454,895,000 3.5645 0.8069 $1,399,000 $317,000 $1,716,000 2020 $788,668,000 $500,587,000 3.5645 0.8069 $1,540,000 $349,000 $1,889,000 2021 $835,148,000 $547,067,000 3.5645 0.8069 $1,695,000 $384,000 $2,079,000 2022 $887,089,000 $599,008,000 3.5645 0.8069 $1,853,000 $419,000 $2,272,000 2023 $940,889,000 $652,808,000 3.5645 0.8069 $2,028,000 $459,000 $2,487,000 2024 $996,947,000 $708,866,000 3.5645 0.8069 $2,211,000 $500,000 $2,711,000 2025 $1,047,610,000 $759,529,000 3.5645 0.8069 $2,400,000 $543,000 $2,943,000 2026 $1,093,898,000 $805,817,000 3.5645 0.8069 $2,572,000 $582,000 $3,154,000 2027 $1,139,554,000 $851,473,000 3.5645 0.8069 $2,729,000 $618,000 $3,347,000 2028 $1,186,165,000 $898,084,000 3.5645 0.8069 $2,883,000 $653,000 $3,536,000 2029 $1,233,732,000 $945,651,000 3.5645 0.8069 $3,041,000 $688,000 $3,729,000 2030 -- 3.5645 0.8069 $3,202,000 $725,000 $3,927,000 $27,553,000 $6,237,000 $33,790,000Total Revenue (3)MillageYearTaxable Value(1)Tax Increment(2) 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 1021 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) TAX INCREMENT & MSTU ESTIMATES -- 5.6 -- Fund 001 Fund 111 Fund 001 Fund 111 2018 $701,076,000 $412,995,000 - ---- 2019 $742,976,000 $454,895,000 3.5645 0.8069 $1,399,000 $317,000 $1,716,000 2020 $788,668,000 $500,587,000 3.5645 0.8069 $1,540,000 $349,000 $1,889,000 2021 $835,148,000 $547,067,000 3.5645 0.8069 $1,695,000 $384,000 $2,079,000 2022 $887,089,000 $599,008,000 3.5645 0.8069 $1,853,000 $419,000 $2,272,000 2023 $940,889,000 $652,808,000 3.5645 0.8069 $2,028,000 $459,000 $2,487,000 2024 $996,947,000 $708,866,000 3.5645 0.8069 $2,211,000 $500,000 $2,711,000 2025 $1,049,405,000 $761,324,000 3.5645 0.8069 $2,400,000 $543,000 $2,943,000 2026 $1,104,810,000 $816,729,000 3.5645 0.8069 $2,578,000 $584,000 $3,162,000 2027 $1,162,466,000 $874,385,000 3.5645 0.8069 $2,766,000 $626,000 $3,392,000 2028 $1,221,578,000 $933,497,000 3.5645 0.8069 $2,961,000 $670,000 $3,631,000 2029 $1,282,147,000 $994,066,000 3.5645 0.8069 $3,161,000 $716,000 $3,877,000 2030 -- 3.5645 0.8069 $3,366,000 $762,000 $4,128,000 $27,958,000 $6,329,000 $34,287,000Total TotalMillageRevenue(3) Year Taxable Value (1)Tax Increment(2) 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 1022 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) TAX INCREMENT & MSTU ESTIMATES -- 5.6 -- Fund 001 Fund 111 Fund 001 Fund 111 2018 $701,076,000 $412,995,000 - ---- 2019 $742,976,000 $454,895,000 3.5645 0.8069 $1,399,000 $317,000 $1,716,000 2020 $788,668,000 $500,587,000 3.5645 0.8069 $1,540,000 $349,000 $1,889,000 2021 $835,148,000 $547,067,000 3.5645 0.8069 $1,695,000 $384,000 $2,079,000 2022 $887,089,000 $599,008,000 3.5645 0.8069 $1,853,000 $419,000 $2,272,000 2023 $940,889,000 $652,808,000 3.5645 0.8069 $2,028,000 $459,000 $2,487,000 2024 $996,947,000 $708,866,000 3.5645 0.8069 $2,211,000 $500,000 $2,711,000 2025 $1,075,710,000 $787,629,000 3.5645 0.8069 $2,400,000 $543,000 $2,943,000 2026 $1,138,185,000 $850,104,000 3.5645 0.8069 $2,667,000 $604,000 $3,271,000 2027 $1,202,734,000 $914,653,000 3.5645 0.8069 $2,879,000 $652,000 $3,531,000 2028 $1,269,358,000 $981,277,000 3.5645 0.8069 $3,097,000 $701,000 $3,798,000 2029 $1,338,058,000 $1,049,977,000 3.5645 0.8069 $3,323,000 $752,000 $4,075,000 2030 -- 3.5645 0.8069 $3,556,000 $805,000 $4,361,000 $28,648,000 $6,485,000 $35,133,000Total Tax Increment(2)Revenue (3) TotalMillageYearTaxable Value(1) 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 1023 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) TAX INCREMENT & MSTU ESTIMATES -- 5.6 -- Tax Year (FY) MSTU Valuation Budgeting Adjustment Millage Projected Revenue 2018 $556,396,000 --- 2019 $591,115,000 95% 2.3604 $1,248,000 2020 $625,527,000 95% 2.3604 $1,326,000 2021 $660,035,000 95% 2.3604 $1,403,000 2022 $694,831,000 95% 2.3604 $1,480,000 2023 $730,024,000 95% 2.3604 $1,558,000 2024 $765,675,000 95% 2.3604 $1,637,000 2025 $801,820,000 95% 2.3604 $1,717,000 2026 $838,479,000 95% 2.3604 $1,798,000 2027 $875,663,000 95% 2.3604 $1,880,000 2028 $913,376,000 95% 2.3604 $1,964,000 2029 $951,615,000 95% 2.3604 $2,048,000 2030 $990,376,000 95% 2.3604 $2,134,000 2031 $1,029,652,000 95% 2.3604 $2,221,000 2032 $1,069,435,000 95% 2.3604 $2,309,000 2033 $1,109,713,000 95% 2.3604 $2,398,000 2034 $1,150,478,000 95% 2.3604 $2,488,000 2035 $1,191,719,000 95% 2.3604 $2,580,000 2036 $1,233,426,000 95% 2.3604 $2,672,000 2037 $1,275,588,000 95% 2.3604 $2,766,000 2038 $1,318,197,000 95% 2.3604 $2,860,000 2039 $1,361,244,000 95% 2.3604 $2,956,000 2040 $1,404,721,000 95% 2.3604 $3,052,000 2041 $1,448,622,000 95% 2.3604 $3,150,000 2042 $1,492,942,000 95% 2.3604 $3,248,000 2043 $1,537,676,000 95% 2.3604 $3,348,000 2044 $1,582,821,000 95% 2.3604 $3,448,000 2045 $1,628,376,000 95% 2.3604 $3,549,000 2046 $1,674,341,000 95% 2.3604 $3,651,000 2047 $1,720,719,000 95% 2.3604 $3,755,000 2048 - 95% 2.3604 $3,859,000 Total - FY 2018-49:$74,503,000 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 1024 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) TAX INCREMENT & MSTU ESTIMATES -- 5.6 -- Tax Year (FY) MSTU Valuation Budgeting Adjustment Millage Projected Revenue 2018 $564,586,000 --- 2019 $606,550,000 95% 2.3604 $1,266,000 2020 $647,829,000 95% 2.3604 $1,360,000 2021 $688,974,000 95% 2.3604 $1,453,000 2022 $730,243,000 95% 2.3604 $1,545,000 2023 $771,769,000 95% 2.3604 $1,637,000 2024 $813,623,000 95% 2.3604 $1,731,000 2025 $855,838,000 95% 2.3604 $1,824,000 2026 $898,424,000 95% 2.3604 $1,919,000 2027 $941,378,000 95% 2.3604 $2,015,000 2028 $984,686,000 95% 2.3604 $2,111,000 2029 $1,028,329,000 95% 2.3604 $2,208,000 2030 $1,072,280,000 95% 2.3604 $2,306,000 2031 $1,116,512,000 95% 2.3604 $2,404,000 2032 $1,160,995,000 95% 2.3604 $2,504,000 2033 $1,205,697,000 95% 2.3604 $2,603,000 2034 $1,250,586,000 95% 2.3604 $2,704,000 2035 $1,295,630,000 95% 2.3604 $2,804,000 2036 $1,340,798,000 95% 2.3604 $2,905,000 2037 $1,386,060,000 95% 2.3604 $3,007,000 2038 $1,431,386,000 95% 2.3604 $3,108,000 2039 $1,476,747,000 95% 2.3604 $3,210,000 2040 $1,522,118,000 95% 2.3604 $3,311,000 2041 $1,567,474,000 95% 2.3604 $3,413,000 2042 $1,612,792,000 95% 2.3604 $3,515,000 2043 $1,658,052,000 95% 2.3604 $3,616,000 2044 $1,703,235,000 95% 2.3604 $3,718,000 2045 $1,748,324,000 95% 2.3604 $3,819,000 2046 $1,793,307,000 95% 2.3604 $3,920,000 2047 $1,838,170,000 95% 2.3604 $4,021,000 2048 - 95% 2.3604 $4,122,000 Total - FY 2018-49:$80,079,000 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 1025 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) TAX INCREMENT & MSTU ESTIMATES -- 5.6 -- Tax Year (FY) MSTU Valuation Budgeting Adjustment Millage Projected Revenue 2018 $570,658,000 --- 2019 $618,846,000 95% 2.3604 $1,280,000 2020 $666,424,000 95% 2.3604 $1,388,000 2021 $714,014,000 95% 2.3604 $1,494,000 2022 $761,899,000 95% 2.3604 $1,601,000 2023 $810,218,000 95% 2.3604 $1,708,000 2024 $859,037,000 95% 2.3604 $1,817,000 2025 $908,378,000 95% 2.3604 $1,926,000 2026 $958,236,000 95% 2.3604 $2,037,000 2027 $1,008,590,000 95% 2.3604 $2,149,000 2028 $1,059,406,000 95% 2.3604 $2,262,000 2029 $1,110,643,000 95% 2.3604 $2,376,000 2030 $1,162,251,000 95% 2.3604 $2,490,000 2031 $1,214,180,000 95% 2.3604 $2,606,000 2032 $1,266,376,000 95% 2.3604 $2,723,000 2033 $1,318,783,000 95% 2.3604 $2,840,000 2034 $1,371,346,000 95% 2.3604 $2,957,000 2035 $1,424,009,000 95% 2.3604 $3,075,000 2036 $1,476,717,000 95% 2.3604 $3,193,000 2037 $1,529,417,000 95% 2.3604 $3,311,000 2038 $1,582,058,000 95% 2.3604 $3,430,000 2039 $1,634,591,000 95% 2.3604 $3,548,000 2040 $1,686,969,000 95% 2.3604 $3,665,000 2041 $1,739,148,000 95% 2.3604 $3,783,000 2042 $1,791,089,000 95% 2.3604 $3,900,000 2043 $1,842,753,000 95% 2.3604 $4,016,000 2044 $1,894,108,000 95% 2.3604 $4,132,000 2045 $1,945,121,000 95% 2.3604 $4,247,000 2046 $1,995,767,000 95% 2.3604 $4,362,000 2047 $2,046,022,000 95% 2.3604 $4,475,000 2048 - 95% 2.3604 $4,588,000 Total - FY 2018-49:$87,379,000 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 1026 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) TAX INCREMENT & MSTU ESTIMATES -- 5.6 -- Tax Year (FY) MSTU Valuation Budgeting Adjustment Millage Projected Revenue 2018 $114,144,000 --- 2019 $121,368,000 95% 1.0000 $108,000 2020 $128,527,000 95% 1.0000 $115,000 2021 $135,705,000 95% 1.0000 $122,000 2022 $142,943,000 95% 1.0000 $129,000 2023 $150,263,000 95% 1.0000 $136,000 2024 $157,677,000 95% 1.0000 $143,000 2025 $165,193,000 95% 1.0000 $150,000 2026 $172,815,000 95% 1.0000 $157,000 2027 $180,545,000 95% 1.0000 $164,000 2028 $188,384,000 95% 1.0000 $172,000 2029 $196,330,000 95% 1.0000 $179,000 2030 $204,383,000 95% 1.0000 $187,000 2031 $212,541,000 95% 1.0000 $194,000 2032 $220,801,000 95% 1.0000 $202,000 2033 $229,163,000 95% 1.0000 $210,000 2034 $237,623,000 95% 1.0000 $218,000 2035 $246,178,000 95% 1.0000 $226,000 2036 $254,828,000 95% 1.0000 $234,000 2037 $263,569,000 95% 1.0000 $242,000 2038 $272,399,000 95% 1.0000 $250,000 2039 $281,317,000 95% 1.0000 $259,000 2040 $290,320,000 95% 1.0000 $267,000 2041 $299,407,000 95% 1.0000 $276,000 2042 $308,577,000 95% 1.0000 $284,000 2043 $317,829,000 95% 1.0000 $293,000 2044 $327,161,000 95% 1.0000 $302,000 2045 $336,574,000 95% 1.0000 $311,000 2046 $346,067,000 95% 1.0000 $320,000 2047 $355,641,000 95% 1.0000 $329,000 2048 - 95% 1.0000 $338,000 Total - FY 2018-49:$6,517,000 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 1027 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) TAX INCREMENT & MSTU ESTIMATES -- 5.6 -- Tax Year (FY) MSTU Valuation Budgeting Adjustment Millage Projected Revenue 2018 $115,836,000 --- 2019 $124,558,000 95% 1.0000 $110,000 2020 $133,140,000 95% 1.0000 $118,000 2021 $141,695,000 95% 1.0000 $126,000 2022 $150,278,000 95% 1.0000 $135,000 2023 $158,915,000 95% 1.0000 $143,000 2024 $167,620,000 95% 1.0000 $151,000 2025 $176,401,000 95% 1.0000 $159,000 2026 $185,259,000 95% 1.0000 $168,000 2027 $194,193,000 95% 1.0000 $176,000 2028 $203,200,000 95% 1.0000 $184,000 2029 $212,276,000 95% 1.0000 $193,000 2030 $221,414,000 95% 1.0000 $202,000 2031 $230,610,000 95% 1.0000 $210,000 2032 $239,856,000 95% 1.0000 $219,000 2033 $249,146,000 95% 1.0000 $228,000 2034 $258,472,000 95% 1.0000 $237,000 2035 $267,828,000 95% 1.0000 $246,000 2036 $277,207,000 95% 1.0000 $254,000 2037 $286,603,000 95% 1.0000 $263,000 2038 $296,008,000 95% 1.0000 $272,000 2039 $305,418,000 95% 1.0000 $281,000 2040 $314,825,000 95% 1.0000 $290,000 2041 $324,226,000 95% 1.0000 $299,000 2042 $333,615,000 95% 1.0000 $308,000 2043 $342,987,000 95% 1.0000 $317,000 2044 $352,339,000 95% 1.0000 $326,000 2045 $361,667,000 95% 1.0000 $335,000 2046 $370,967,000 95% 1.0000 $344,000 2047 $380,238,000 95% 1.0000 $352,000 2048 - 95% 1.0000 $361,000 Total - FY 2018-49:$7,007,000 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 1028 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) TAX INCREMENT & MSTU ESTIMATES -- 5.6 -- Tax Year (FY) MSTU Valuation Budgeting Adjustment Millage Projected Revenue 2018 $117,093,000 --- 2019 $127,106,000 95% 1.0000 $111,000 2020 $136,995,000 95% 1.0000 $121,000 2021 $146,888,000 95% 1.0000 $130,000 2022 $156,844,000 95% 1.0000 $140,000 2023 $166,892,000 95% 1.0000 $149,000 2024 $177,044,000 95% 1.0000 $159,000 2025 $187,305,000 95% 1.0000 $168,000 2026 $197,673,000 95% 1.0000 $178,000 2027 $208,144,000 95% 1.0000 $188,000 2028 $218,710,000 95% 1.0000 $198,000 2029 $229,362,000 95% 1.0000 $208,000 2030 $240,089,000 95% 1.0000 $218,000 2031 $250,880,000 95% 1.0000 $228,000 2032 $261,724,000 95% 1.0000 $238,000 2033 $272,609,000 95% 1.0000 $249,000 2034 $283,523,000 95% 1.0000 $259,000 2035 $294,454,000 95% 1.0000 $269,000 2036 $305,390,000 95% 1.0000 $280,000 2037 $316,321,000 95% 1.0000 $290,000 2038 $327,234,000 95% 1.0000 $301,000 2039 $338,119,000 95% 1.0000 $311,000 2040 $348,967,000 95% 1.0000 $321,000 2041 $359,769,000 95% 1.0000 $332,000 2042 $370,514,000 95% 1.0000 $342,000 2043 $381,197,000 95% 1.0000 $352,000 2044 $391,809,000 95% 1.0000 $362,000 2045 $402,344,000 95% 1.0000 $372,000 2046 $412,795,000 95% 1.0000 $382,000 2047 $423,159,000 95% 1.0000 $392,000 2048 - 95% 1.0000 $402,000 Total - FY 2018-49:$7,650,000 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 1029 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) TAX INCREMENT & MSTU ESTIMATES -- 5.6 5.6.3 Underlying Assumptions -- -- - -- --- 0.00% 0.50% 1.00% 1.50% 2.00% 2.50% 3.00% 3.50% 4.00% 4.50% Annual Population Growth Rate (2000-2030) Collier County State of Florida 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 1030 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) TAX INCREMENT & MSTU ESTIMATES -- 5.6 --- -- y = 60,174,402.16x2 -447,131,682.73x + 4,078,106,962.70 R² = 0.95 $0 $20,000,000,000 $40,000,000,000 $60,000,000,000 $80,000,000,000 $100,000,000,000 $120,000,000,000 $140,000,000,000 $160,000,000,000 $180,000,000,000 1976197819801982198419861988199019921994199619982000200220042006200820102012201420162018202020222024202620282030 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 1031 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) TAX INCREMENT & MSTU ESTIMATES -- 5.6 Conclusion 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 1032 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 1033 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 1034 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) ORDINANCE NO. 17 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT OF THE BAYSHORE DRIVE MIXED USE OVERLAY DISTRICT OF THE RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY-6 ZONING DISTRICT (RMF-6- BMUD-NC) AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT OF THE BAYSHORE DRIVE MIXED USE OVERLAY DISTRICT OF THE COMMERCIAL INTERMEDIATE ZONING DISTRICT (C-3-BMUD-NC) TO A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT OF THE BAYSHORE DRIVE MIXED USE OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR THE PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS MATTAMY HOMES RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A MAXIMUM OF 276 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF BAYSHORE DRIVE AND THOMASSON DRIVE IN SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CONSISTING OF 37+/- ACRES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PL20160000183] WHEREAS, Mattamy Naples, LLC, represented by Richard Yovanovich, Esq. of Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester, PA and D. Wayne Arnold of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, Inc., petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described real property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from the Neighborhood 16-CPS-01572/1344269/11 112 Mattamy Homes/PL20160000183 6/ 8/17 Page 1 of 2 P 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 1035 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) Commercial Subdistrict of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District of the Residential Multi-Family-6 Zoning District (RMF-6-BMUD-NC) and the Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District of the Commercial Intermediate Zoning District (C-3-BMUD-NC) to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD), within the Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District to allow construction of a maximum of 276 residential dwelling units in accordance with the RPUD Document, attached hereto as Exhibits "A" through "F" and incorporated by reference herein. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this 0*-day of ffu ne_ , 2017. ATTEST BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT',, BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: 1 A114 L Dut , Mew" PE TAYL• ', ' hairman Attest as to Chairman's signature only. V Approved as to form and legality: Heidi Ashton- icko Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A-Permitted Uses This ordinance filed with the Exhibit B-Development Standards Secretary of State's Office the Exhibit C-Master Plan day of Jung- , 20(1 Exhibit D-Legal Description and acknowledgement of that Exhibit E-Deviations filing received this 44' day Exhibit F-List of Developer Commitments of—""' 2.0/ By I. 16-CPS-01572/1344269/1] 112 Mattamy Homes/PL20160000183 6/8/17 Page 2 of 2 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 1036 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) EXHIBIT A FOR MATTAMY HOMES RPUD Regulations for development of the Mattamy Homes RPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this RPUD Document and applicable sections of the LDC and Growth Management Plan (GMP) in effect at the time of issuance of any development order to which said regulations relate. Where this RPUD Ordinance does not provide development standards, then the provisions of the specific sections of the LDC that are otherwise applicable shall apply. PERMITTED USES: A maximum total of 276 residential dwelling units shall be permitted within the RPUD. No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: RESIDENTIAL A. Principal Uses: 1. Dwelling Units — Multiple family, townhouse, variable zero lot line, two family and single family. 2. Any other principal use, which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA") or the Hearing Examiner. B. Accessory Uses: 1. Customary accessory uses associated with the principal uses permitted in this RPUD, including but not limited to garages,carports, swimming pools, spas,screen enclosures and utility buildings. 2. Gatehouses, and access control structures. 3. Model homes and model home centers including sales trailers and offices for project administration, construction, sales and marketing. 4. Open space uses and structures such as, but not limited to, boardwalks, nature trails, gazebos and picnic areas. 5. Any other accessory use,which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and consistent with the permitted accessory uses of this PUD as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Hearing Examiner. AMENITY AREA A. Principal Uses: Mattamy RPUD PL2016000183 Page 1 of 10 May 18,2017 CCPC 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 1037 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) 1. Clubhouses with cafes,snack bars and similar uses intended to serve residents and guests. 2. Community administrative and recreation facilities. Outdoor recreation facilities, such as a community swimming pool, tennis/pickle ball courts and basketball courts, parks, playgrounds, pedestrian/bikeways, and passive and/or active water features (for use by the residents and their guests only). 3. Tennis clubs, health spas, fitness facilities and other indoor recreational uses (for use by the residents and their guests only). 4. Open space uses and structures such as, but not limited to, boardwalks, nature trails, bikeways, landscape nurseries,gazebos, boat and canoe docks,fishing piers, picnic areas, fitness trails and shelters to serve residents and their guests. B. Accessory Uses: 1. Model homes and model home centers including sales trailers and offices for project administration, construction, sales and marketing. 2. Any other accessory use,which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and consistent with the permitted accessory uses of this PUD as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals or Hearing Examiner. Mattamy RPUD PL2016000183 Page 2 of 10 May 18,2017 CCPC A 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 1038 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) EXHIBIT B FOR MATTAMY HOMES RPUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Exhibit B sets forth the development standards for land uses within the Mattamy Homes RPUD Subdistrict. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the SDP or subdivision plat. PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES TOWNHOUSE VARIABLE LOT TWO-FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY MULTI- AMENITY LINE FOR FAMILY AREA SINGLE FAMILY Minimum Lot Area 1,200 SF 3,000 SF 2,625 SF 3,000 SF 10,800 SF 5,000 SF Minimum Lot Width 20 feet 40 feet 35 feet 40 feet 120 feet N/A Minimum Lot Depth 60 feet 75 feet 75 feet 75 feet 90 feet N/A Minimum Front Yard Setback*1, *6 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet N/A Minimum Side Yard Setback 0/10 feet 0/10 feet*4 5 feet*2 5 feet 5 feet 10 feet Minimum Rear Yard Setback*3 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 15 feet Minimum Lake Maintenance Easement Setback*3 0 feet 0 feet 0 feet 0 feet 0 feet 0 feet Maximum Building Height 1 or 2 story 1 or 2 story Zoned 35 feet 35 feet Actual 45 feet 45 feet 3 story 3 story Zoned 42 feet 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet 42 feet 42 feet Actual 50 feet 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet 50 feet 50 feet Minimum Distance Between Buildings 10 feet*7 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet*7 10 feet Floor Area Min. (S.F.), per unit, ground floor 700 SF 900 SF 900 SF 900 SF 700 SF N/A Minimum PUD Boundary Setback 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 20 feet ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Minimum Front Yard Setback*1 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet Minimum Side Yard Setback 0 feet 0 feet 0 feet 0 feet 10 feet 10 feet Minimum Rear Yard Setback*3 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet Minimum Drainage Easement Setback*3 0 feet 0 feet 0 feet 0 feet 0 feet 15 feet Minimum PUD Boundary Setback 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 10 feet Minimum Distance Between Structures 0/10 feet*5 0/ 5 feet*5 0/10 feet*5 10 feet*5 0/10 feet*5 10 feet Maximum Height Zoned 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 25 feet Actual 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 30 feet Minimum lot areas for any unit type may be exceeded. The unit type,and not the minimum lot area,shall define the development standards to be applied by the Growth Management Division during an application for a building permit. 1—Front entry garages must be a minimum of 23'from back of sidewalk. Porches,entry features and roofed courtyards that do not exceed 50%of the facade width may be reduced to 15'.All parking areas must remain clear of sidewalks. 2—Minimum separation between adjacent dwelling units,if attached,may be 0'. Mattamy RPUD PL2016000183 Page 3 of 10 May 18,2017 CCPC cA 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 1039 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) 3—The Landscape Buffer Easements shall be located within open space tracts and Lake Maintenance Easements shall be located within lake tracts and not be located within a platted residential lot. Where a home site is adjacent to a Landscape Buffer Easement or Lake Maintenance Easement within open space tracts or lake tracts,the structure setback on the platted residential lot may be reduced to zero(0)feet where it abuts the easement. 4—The side setback may be variable between zero feet(0')to five feet(5')as long as a 10-foot minimum separation between principal structures is maintained. If the variable lot line for single-family option is utilized,the owner shall provide with the building permit application,the setback of the principal structures on the abutting lots of all sides. 5—Zero Feet(0')if attached and five feet(5')if detached;However detached structures must maintain a minimum ten foot(10')separation. 6—For corner lots,only one frontage shall be considered a front yard. The other frontage setback shall be%the front yard setback. 7—any building exceeding 2 stories shall maintain minimum building separation of twenty feet(20'). Note:nothing in this RPUD Document shall be deemed to approve a deviation from the LDC unless it is expressly stated in a list of deviations. Mattamy RPUD PL2016000183 Page 4 of 10 May 18,2017 CCPC 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 1040 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) I- N 5 ti R€ , W w lE = C( g 1 z_— I - Q Q N w 2 d 2 J J J Z d J Y J O Q v, Q ¢ 00 Q D n. H m U H Z Z ce Z w m W p w LL F Z LL a - N Dm w d w m d m b U D P w CL CO a ww u) W D 0 D d Z w 0 O Z Z2 W Z u) u) W N pew 4 a 0 C 0 dw CC N 0 W Li- w o CCO a 0 3/ IRJa 3t! OHSAV8 m 0 Q zz O mm m C I- O )' i. i• ' r1VM H9' 11. 100, 1 9 o I; E. Z zo i ,- \ m _ I w Z 0 w0 lc w O Q z O < j j w W I j Q is j Z J o O a c I I O I i/ d 1 I. Qa s j IQ Z I I j j I; z y ' i %. / a j N ¢ 91 co ¢ j `,---------- I- j 2 j 3 I w-J m a , 5. o 1 , 1 fy 11 ct j I x i I. a z w I i ED w i I I 1; zu " a ow L F------:- - -- \ I j x i' w D -' t. aim C .• 00 a dill m j j j l Ow , a ¢ 0 w e, Z a ' YN j ' i j z O j v UJ o E7 1 N i _, 1 I w a Co 1—¢ I I j 9'. o w LL cz to P Q j j I II dw IX s v j jI IS, m o g- I j j I I z r. I. IIOAIII3 M II' I NIVHD eg8 s 1332i1S 3NId TIVA; I HOIH h003 9 - 4 f; , i a WWw 00 OZ Li. 1VI1N341S321 : fl I- Z ~ J g 00 Z21- af1W8- 9- 3W2l QNV lH- af W8- 9- 3 J : a3NOZ Uw - 0 > 8 g" P 2 wO IA co 0 Lii CO 0- 0 gFenuca e" } a 3 w Q a aw z¢ °• e0000a 0 ce LOo N mN Q ¢ wQ W O rcrcsrc6' o 0 00 W W I- cc z D Qa e U¢ ¢ U _ I- F- i[ ¢+ I N + I - LI- 0 N W I- Z F . LL s- mss ONNM• - 0 d QQw ZW Q a r H ai < t d CO m pp l— 2 J D W 0 w pI ce = w ja QP JLii H 0 N W p H a - H d Z W W 1 Z W ¢ I— O - IW UO Q ~ = 2 z ¢ I- wz Qw2 uLI ° wQ O MJW ¢ w Z a J ZWF— ZOOU JJ z0 cc coI cL < >- W OW ¢ _ z w ~ ¢ cco w WW Q - I zQ2W Qo 0ZZ Qw w 0 co Cz- 7zww aC[ - QtU- iO Qww Iw-( nw . LLu- g 00 z0 Cn¢ ceLL ZOJ U > cncnw NW2¢ DO a- WCC WCCI•- D S — WJOU W W We cc as Rd H I- 00 co I- aa ¢ 2Q W cC ¢ co — I Q w u 11 u 0 2 0I 5 ' N viz N a10 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 1041 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle EXHIBIT D FOR MATTAMY HOMES RPUD LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL 1: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTH 1/4 CORNER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,SAID POINT BEING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 59 OF NAPLES GROVES AND TRUCK CO'S LITTLE FARMS NO. 2, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 27A, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA;THENCE ALONG THE NORTH AND SOUTH 1/4 LINE OF SECTION 14 AND ALONG THE WEST LINE OF LOT 59 OF SAID NAPLES GROVES AND TRUCK CO'S LITTLE FARMS NO.2, NORTH 0°13'10" WEST 50.0 FEET TO THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF S-858(THOMASSON DRIVE);THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, NORTH 89°45'16" EAST, 30.00 FEET TO THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF PINE STREET AND THE PLACE OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE ALONG SAID EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, NORTH 0°13'10" WEST 1282.27 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 56 OF SAID NAPLES GROVES AND TRUCK CO'S LITTLE FARMS NO. 2; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, NORTH 89°41'31" EAST 1265. 08 FEET TO THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF S-858 (KELLY ROAD); THENCE ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, SOUTH 0°17151" EAST 800.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89°41'31" WEST 451.76 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0°17'51" EAST 483.12 FEET TO THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID S-858 (THOMASSON DRIVE); THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT-OF- WAY LINE, SOUTH 89° 45'16" WEST 815.00 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING; BEING A PART OF LOT 56, A PART OF LOT 57,A PART OF LOT 58, AND A PART OF LOT 59 OF SAID NAPLES GROVES AND TRUCK CO'S LITTLE FARMS NO. 2, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PARCEL 2: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTH 1/4 CORNER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,SAID POINT BEING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 59 OF NAPLES GROVES AND TRUCK CO'S LITTLE FARMS NO. 2,ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 27, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA;THENCE ALONG THE NORTH AND SOUTH 1/4 LINE OF SAID SECTION 14 AND ALONG THE WEST LINE OF LOT 59, OF SAID NAPLES GROVES AND TRUCK CO'S LITTLE FARMS 2, NORTH 00°13'10"WEST 50.00 FEET,TO THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF S-858 (THOMASSON DRIVE);THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, NORTH 89°45'15" EAST 845.00 FEET FOR THE PLACE OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED;THENCE NORTH 00°17'51" WEST, 483.12 FEET;THENCE NORTH 89°41'31" EAST, 451.76 FEET TO THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF S-858 (KELLY ROAD); THENCE ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, SOUTH 00°17'51" EAST, 433.61 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, SOUTHWESTERLY, 78.58 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CIRCULAR CURVE, CONCAVE TO THE NORTHWEST, RADIUS 50.00 FEET, SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS SOUTH 44°43'42" WEST,70.74 FEET;THENCE ALONG THE NORTH RIGHT- OF-WAY LINE OF S-858 (THOMASSON DRIVE),SOUTH 89°45'16"WEST,401.76 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING; BEING A PART OF LOT 58,AND A PART OF LOT 59 OF SAID NAPLES GROVES AND TRUCK CO'S LITTLE FARMS NO. 2, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. Mattamy RPUD PL2016000183 Page 6 of 10 May 18,2017 CCPC 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 1042 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) EXHIBIT E FOR MATTAMY HOMES RPUD LIST OF DEVIATIONS 1. From LDC Section 4.02.16.A.1, Design Standard in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment area, which requires dimensional standards as shown in Table 1, Dimensional Requirements in the BMUD-NC, to allow Mattamy Homes to establish their own residential development types and dimensional standards as set forth in this PUD. 2. From LDC Section 6.06. 01.N,Street System Requirements and Appendix B,Typical Street Sections and Right-of-Way Design Standards, which establishes a 60-foot wide local road, to allow a minimum 50' wide local private road. This deviation applies when the developer proposes to develop local platted streets in lieu of a private drive or access way. See Typical Street Section. 3. From LDC Section 4.06.02.C.4, Buffer Requirements, which requires developments of 15 acres or more to provide a perimeter landscape buffer of at least 20 feet in width regardless of the width of the right-of-way, to permit a minimum 15' wide Type 'D' buffer adjacent to external right-of- ways. Mattamy RPUD PL2016000183 Page 7 of 10 May 18,2017 CCPC 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 1043 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) KV 9S: 6 L IWZ/£// 5 0M0" 133211SdU- VHIY\ SoNIMVdJ\{£ 9 10000910Z1d) 31, t0Z321 S311OH ANNIVII - VH11\` JNINNY1d - Mad\ DI, INNVIdV0 CD W Q 4. N O J am 3z CO S iotli 13 UQm 1- WCDz q w J D a, o CO U W O Cf) NH- li 1 _ _ O W I-cncn I" z c Q Ua W rr- o O N W Z N C. Z I Q CC O J Vis_ n Q wW I= A r $ cc w 840 g 1 n d W I— i : J / Zg EE O J cn L W y e Oin Q a se2 N > t z O rn In Z C a Z J CI d J QQQri In W W c ) w n G.. Z ii ch O 111 m 4 c I C_) V d m CO W O W YQ O Z CO 1- E3 N N D C7 CO Z YU >- p Qm m D w } CO cnWCO cnY o a w. A W W m C I— C' W z O Q 0 1 Z CD 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 1044 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle EXHIBIT F FOR MATTAMY HOMES RPUD LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS 1. PUD MONITORING One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for PUD monitoring until close-out of the PUD, and this entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all PUD commitments until close-out of the PUD. At the time of this PUD approval, the Managing Entity is Mattamy Homes, LLC, 4107 Crescent Park Drive, Riverview, FL 33578. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring and commitments to a successor entity,then it must provide a copy of a legally binding document that needs to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney. After such approval, the Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon written approval of the transfer by County staff,and the successor entity shall become the Managing Entity. As Owner and Developer sell off tracts, the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to County that includes an acknowledgement of the commitments required by the PUD by the new owner and the new owner's agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing Entity, but the Managing Entity shall not be relieved of its responsibility under this Section. When the PUD is closed-out, then the Managing Entity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of PUD commitments. 2. PLANNING a. Amenity areas shown are approximate locations and final location shall be determined at time of SDP or Plat. The northernmost amenity area will be developed in the event an interconnection with Windstar is constructed. One of the potential amenity areas may be developed with residential dwellings. b. A maximum of 62 density bonus pool units, as provided for in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay in the Future Land Use Element of the GMP, are available for this RPUD for a period of seven years from the date of approval of this RPUD. If after seven years the bonus units have not been utilized, the bonus units shall expire and not be available unless reauthorized by the Board of Zoning Appeals. 3. TRANSPORTATION A. Intensity of uses under any development scenario for the PUD is limited to the two-way, unadjusted, average weekday, pm peak hour trip entering/exiting generation of 138 total trips consistent with the TIS dated July 6, 2016 (gross trips). The term "unadjusted" references pass-by and internal capture trip reductions that are not included in the above calculation. B. The owner, or its successors or assigns, at its sole expense, shall construct a five-foot wide sidewalk along the RPUD's frontage on Pine Street prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the RPUD. Owner shall install a wall with Type'B' buffer plant material along Pine Street as depicted on Exhibit C, Master Plan. Mattamy RPUD PL2016000183 Page 9 of 10 May 18,2017 CCPC 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 1045 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) 4. MISCELLANEOUS a. 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. b. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. c. As represented by applicant at the required neighborhood information meeting, no blasting shall be used in the process of creating the water management areas. 5.LANDSCAPING In order to avoid conflicts with utilities and sidewalks, the required canopy tree for an individual lot shall be on from the following list: Wax Myrtle 1:1 Green Buttonwood 1:1 Satin Leaf 1:1 Pigeon Plum 1:1 Geiger Tree 1: 1 Silver Buttonwood 1: 1 Pitch Apple (Clusia) 1:1 Dahoon Holly 2:1 Where it can be demonstrated that another tree species can be planted without conflict, staff may approve this alternative species. 6. DRAINAGE To obtain drainage concurrency, prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, the owner shall, at its sole cost, replace the existing 12-inch drainage pipe within the Pine Street right-of- way with an appropriately-sized drainage pipe that will accommodate stormwater from the RPUD and from property that currently flows through the Pine Street drainage pipe. Prior to construction, the Collier County Road Maintenance Department must review and approve the plans and the owner shall obtain a right-of-way permit. Mattamy RPUD PL2016000183 Page 10 of 10 May 18,2017 CCPC flt 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 1046 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) 4 11ff, - NN vit -R, i„....; , __.,.,.g..., A Y ,1`a,, WE t 0 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT Of STATE RICK SCOTT KEN DETZNER Governor Secretary of State June 20, 2017 Honorable Dwight E. Brock Clerk of the Circuit Court Collier County Post Office Box 413044 Naples, Florida 34101-3044 Attention: Martha Vergara, Deputy Clerk Dear Mr. Brock: Pursuant to the provisions of Section 125.66, Florida Statutes,this will acknowledge receipt of your electronic copy of Collier County Ordinance No. 17-18,which was filed in this office on June 20, 2017. Sincerely, Ernest L. Reddick Program Administrator ELR/lb R. A. Gray Building • 500 South Bronough Street • Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Telephone: (850) 245-6270 www.dos.state.fl.us 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 1047 Attachment: 02-18-21 - Memo and Attachments (rfs) (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) 1 MedinaJosephine From:Joan Scannell <joan.scannell@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, June 3, 2021 9:53 AM To:MedinaJosephine Subject:Re: Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA - Public Comment 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. Hi Josephine, The comments you put together look good. Thank you for doing this. I just added some additional thoughts as I was thinking about it last night. Below is my finalized version. Can you please make sure it lands on the desk of the individuals who make these decisions. Also, will this meeting be presented via live video and available for virtual attendance? Thank you, Joan Dear Zoning Board Members, I am against the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay and ask that you both vote this down and commit to taking steps to restrict further development in the Naples/Collier County area. My main concern is how much more density will be permitted in this area and that Naples is starting to turn into Lee County. More urban style development is not what is needed in Naples. I worry about that continued destruction of undeveloped land will destroy the historic Florida character Naples once had. I am concerned about the number of housing developments being approved in the area as it seems that they are just trying to pack as many homes in as they possibly can. From the way zoning keeps approving these developments, the authorities seem to have no concern about the overwhelming destruction of unspoiled land and they don't care these houses are literally on top of each other with little to no separation from one another. In addition, the impact on our infrastructure has also been seen with the increase in traffic on the Collier County roads. It is nearly impossible to go even a few blocks down any of our major roadways without finding ourselves log- jammed in traffic. This was not this way just a few years ago. I would also like to note that I am also VERY concerned that current development appears to be already encroaching on the Everglades themselves. This is a very delicate ecosystem and it should be protected above any developmental interests. Under no circumstances should there be any housing developments of any size in this area. Finally, as this applies to commercial development, there are still a lot of existing, empty commercial properties that have no tenants. Instead of building a new commercial property in another location, these locations should be considered for reconstruction/rehabilitation rather than destroying untouched natural land. One example of empty commercial property is the plaza across from the Collier County government complex. In summary, I have very grave concerns about the massive development I have seen in Collier County in the last 11 years that I have owned my property. I ask you to vote down the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay AND restrict further development in the county because we are 1. unnecessarily destroying undeveloped land, 2. risking the well-being of the delicate Everglades ecosystems that borders the city, 3. we are destroying the former Old Florida Charm Naples once had, 4. we are already overtaxed on the ability of our infrastructure/roads to handle more people, 5. we have plenty of commercial property already vacant that can be rehabilitated and used and 6. we at over-density already as a result of all the housing developments built in the last few years. 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1048 Attachment: Exhibit C - Public Comments (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA) 2 I ask that you seriously consider my request and put the well-being and authenticity of Naples ahead of any economic interests/incentives that might be motivating the over-development and extreme taxation of this region. Let us learn from the mistakes of Lee County rather than repeat them here. Thank you, Joan Scannell 163 Palm Drive Naples, FL 34112 (518) 428-8655 On Thursday, June 3, 2021, 06:49:22 AM EDT, MedinaJosephine <josephine.medina@colliercountyfl.gov> wrote: Good morning, Please see below summary of your concerns from our phone conversation. That will be included as part of the record. For this Growth Management Plan Amendment. Main concern is how much more density will be permitted in this area and that Naples is starting to turn into Lee County. More urban style development is not what is needed in Naples. In fact, there are still a lot of empty commercial properties that have no tenants. Instead of building a new commercial property in another location, these locations should be considered for reconstruction rather than destroying untouched natural land. One example of empty commercial property is the plaza across from the Collier County government complex. Concerned with the number of developments approved where it seems that they are just trying to just pack as many homes they possible can and the way Zoning keeps approving these homes that seem to have little to no separation from one another. Respectfully, Josephine Medina Principal Planner Zoning Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 Office: (239) 252-2306 Josephine.Medina@colliercountyfl.gov 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1049 Attachment: Exhibit C - Public Comments (16110 : PL2021000603 Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay GMPA)