Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Agenda 05/19/2022
Collier County Planning Commission Page 1 Printed 5/12/2022 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 May 19, 2022 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. May 2022 Collier County Planning Commission Page 2 Printed 5/12/2022 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call by Secretary 3. Addenda to the Agenda 4. Planning Commission Absences 5. Approval of Minutes A. Meeting Minutes April 7, 2022 CCPC Meeting Minutes April 21, 2022 CCPC Meeting Minutes 6. BCC Report - Recaps 7. Chairman's Report 8. Consent Agenda 9. Public Hearings A. Advertised 1. PL20210003228-Good Turn Center PUDA- An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 2009-53 the Good Turn Center Mixed Use Planned Unit Development by increasing the zoned height from 45 feet to 55 feet and actual height from 55 feet to 65 feet, and providing an effective date. The subject property, consisting of 9.5+/- acres, is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard, north of Rattlesnake Hammock Road, in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Gabriela Castro, AICP, Principal Planner] May 2022 Collier County Planning Commission Page 3 Printed 5/12/2022 2. PL20210000623 - Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA - An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 89-05, as amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, specifically amending the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and map series to create the Carman Drive Subdistrict by changing the designation of property from Urban, Urban-Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict to Urban, Urban-Mixed Use District, Carman Drive Subdistrict to allow up to 212 rental dwelling units of which 42 units will be affordable housing and rent restricted. The subject property is located at 8496 Rattlesnake Hammock Road, north of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and west of Carman Drive in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 15.41± acres; and furthermore, directing transmittal of the adopted amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity; providing for severability and providing for an effective date. (Companion to RPUD-PL20210000623) [Coordinator: Michele Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner] 3. PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD - An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida creating a Residential Planned Unit Development, by amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from the Rural Agricultural (A) Zoning District to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Zoning District for the project to be known as the Carman Drive 15 RPUD, to allow construction of a maximum of 212 rental dwelling units of which 42 will be affordable housing and rent restricted on property located at 8496 Rattlesnake Hammock Road, north of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and west of Carman Drive in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 15.41± acres; and by providing an effective date. (Companion to GMPA-PL20210000623) [Coordinator: Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager] 4. ** This item has been continued from the May 5, 2022 CCPC Meeting **PL20210000660 - Affordable Housing Initiatives GMPA - A Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners proposing County-initiated amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 89-05, as amended, to address housing initiatives to allow affordable housing by right in certain commercial zoning districts; to increase density for affordable housing; to establish a Strategic Opportunity Site Subdistrict; and to increase density for affordable housing projects along Collier Area Transit routes; specifically amending the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map; Golden Gate City Sub- Element of Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element and Future Land Use Map; the Immokalee Area Master Plan Element and Future Land Use Map; and adding a policy to the Transportation Element pertaining to affordable housing along transit routes; and furthermore directing transmittal of these amendments to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. [Coordinator: MIchele R. Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner] B. Noticed 10. Old Business 11. New Business May 2022 Collier County Planning Commission Page 4 Printed 5/12/2022 12. Public Comment 13. Adjourn 05/19/2022 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 5.A Item Summary: Meeting Minutes April 7, 2022 CCPC Meeting Minutes April 21, 2022 CCPC Meeting Minutes Meeting Date: 05/19/2022 Prepared by: Title: Operations Analyst – Planning Commission Name: Diane Lynch 04/21/2022 11:51 AM Submitted by: Title: – Zoning Name: Mike Bosi 04/21/2022 11:51 AM Approved By: Review: Planning Commission Diane Lynch Review item Completed 04/21/2022 11:51 AM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 04/21/2022 11:58 AM Zoning Mike Bosi Zoning Director Review Completed 04/25/2022 2:03 PM Growth Management Department Mike Bosi GMD Deputy Dept Head Completed 04/25/2022 2:03 PM Planning Commission Ray Bellows Meeting Pending 05/19/2022 9:00 AM 5.A Packet Pg. 5 April 7, 2022 Page 1 of 65 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida April 7, 2022 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Edwin Fryer, Chairman Karen Homiak, Vice Chair Karl Fry Joe Schmitt Paul Shea Robert L. Klucik, Jr. ABSENT: Christopher T. Vernon Tom Eastman, Collier County School Board Representative ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney 5.A.a Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 2 of 65 P R O C E E D I N G S CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Bosi. Good morning to everybody. This is the April 7th, 2022, meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. Everyone please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Secretary, may we have a roll call? COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Eastman? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Vernon? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Shea? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm here. Chairman Fryer? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Vice Chair Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Klucik? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Present. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Chair, we have a quorum of six. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. And Mr. Eastman and Mr. Vernon have excused absences. So we will now come to addenda to the agenda. And I'd like to open this up before turning it to Mr. Bellows. The first matter that we have scheduled under Section 9 -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Just briefly, I just want to make sure that what we saw earlier this week hasn't changed as far as the detailed agenda with all of the items. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, there -- something came in a couple of days ago, and I'm going to want to talk about that at the appropriate time. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. I'm just trying to make sure that I'm working off of the document that's the most current version. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well, let me get through this, and then we can talk about that. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: The Golden Gate site design standards matter, which we've got scheduled first off this morning, I want to ask, if there are any members of the public who planned or wished to speak with respect to this matter, please raise your hand. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: And seeing no hands, it makes me want to raise the question of whether we would want to move that item down from Item 1 so that members of the public who wish to speak on other matters could be heard without having to sit through the first matter. What is the wish of the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Fine. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm fine with the move unless we have anybody online 5.A.a Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 3 of 65 that wants to speak in that behalf as well. I don't know. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Youngblood, we don't, do we? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: I don't have any registered speakers for this first item. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. Then, without objection, we're going to move right -- oh, let me just check with staff. Your organization is prepared to present now or to present at the end of No. 9, or does this mess you up? MR. BOSI: Chair, Mike Bosi. Whatever the discretion, whatever the pleasure of the Planning Commission, my staff will be able to adjust. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. Go ahead, Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. I want to go ahead and just raise that question again to staff is I downloaded this before our Monday meeting that I had with staff. Is that still the current version, or has it changed? MR. BOSI: That is the current version. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Great. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You're welcome. Thank you. Now, there was a matter, a 169-page document that came through two days ago and it -- having to do with Item 11B, and it appears to have some red lines in it, but I couldn't tell whether they were red lines that were in the March version or this April version. And so could we have clarification on that? MR. BOSI: The only change that was provided was we did provide additional links for the Immokalee Redevelopment Plan that was provided that gave -- I guess, within your original packet there was not a full -- a full provision of the current Immokalee area redevelopment plan and then what's being proposed as a draft, and that was emailed -- that was emailed, I believe, on Monday. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: But it was online, though. MR. BOSI: Yes, it was online. I'm not sure how it didn't appear in your packet. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. But one of the things that came across was a reference to the 169-page document that I guess Ms. Forester prepared. And I want to -- if there are any changes to that, I would like to have them called out, and if they are substantive, in keeping with the practice that we have of not accepting substantive changes so late in the time frame between meetings, I -- it might be appropriate to consider continuing it. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Which item is this? CHAIRMAN FRYER: This is 11B. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: All right. The 169-page document can -- I haven't seen that. So is that something that can be sent to my -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: There was -- there was -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's online. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. There was 169 pages in the agenda packet, but then the email came through two days ago that said the new items are blumf, blumf, and blumf. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I need that email sent to my other address, because I don't have -- haven't been able to access the county -- MR. KLATZKOW: You've got an advertising issue if you've made changes, all right, because the public is on notice -- MR. BOSI: There's no changes. There's no changes. MR. KLATZKOW: There are no changes? MR. BOSI: The clarification was that material that was transmitted to the Planning Commission within their official packet did not contain the full copies of the redevelopment plan. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 4 of 65 So there's no changes to the document. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. We put out an advertisement. We tell the public everything's on record with the Clerk for them to look at. MR. BOSI: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: Was there everything on record with the Clerk? MR. BOSI: Everything is on record. Everything is available online on the agenda for today's meeting. Everything that's -- everything that's going to be discussed today is online available to the public. MR. KLATZKOW: So what was the change? MR. BOSI: The change was the packets that the Planning Commission received. The individual packet that the Planning Commission, not the public, that's sent out to the Planning Commission did not contain the existing and updated redevelopment plan. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. So in other words, the Planning Commission got -- didn't get the entire package. MR. BOSI: They didn't get the entire package. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. So this is not an advertising issue. This is your issue whether or not you want to look at it or not. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Understood. Thank you. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And, Mr. Chairman, I'm just asking if someone can make sure I get that to my RLK address. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And I'm sure that's being taken care of as we speak. I think -- I think I'm hearing the answer to this question, and I think the authorship was Ms. Forester, and there was a 169-page document that I believe was either the plan or a presentation of hers, and maybe she could come forward, if she would. And so I looked at that, and I studied it. Then two or three days ago I got an email that I interpreted to be saying that I needed to click on a link that would take me to what appeared to be the same 169-page document. And I just want to be sure they're the same. Ms. Forester? MS. FORESTER: Good morning. For the record, Deborah Forester, CRA director. I believe one of the -- we have not changed the plan itself except for the errata sheet items that really are not substantive changes. That was under our data analysis that included updates we received from the airport authority to be as current as possible with their projects. So the plan before you today has not changed since you got it. What we are doing is we are striking through the plan that exists from 2000. That is all being deleted and being totally replaced with this new version. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Personally, I don't have a problem with that, but I want to defer to the Planning Commission because we are pretty strict about this when it comes to developers. These are changes. To me, they don't sound substantive, but you want to hear from others. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No, I -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: I'm okay with going ahead. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I read it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have no problem with it. We've been over this plan. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Over and over and over. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: For, Deb, how long now? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: A lot of years. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: A year and a half ago when we first met in Immokalee. MS. FORESTER: Yes. We've had a lot of public input regarding that plan. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well, then, I'm fine. Thank you very much for that clarification. So what -- as a resolution of the discussion we just had, we're going to move 9A1 down to 5.A.a Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 5 of 65 9A, whatever the last number would be, 4 or 5. And we're, therefore, going to lead off with Palisades once we come to No. 9. So that's what we'll do, without objection. Let's see. Mr. Bellows, any other addenda to the agenda? MR. BELLOWS: I have no other changes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is on April 21. Anyone know if he or she cannot be in attendance? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: April 21, let me look. There might be something important. I'm here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Perfect. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It sounds like we're going to be in store for a quorum. That's good. COMMISSIONER FRY: Chairman Fryer, I have a potential conflict with a son's activity. I'm not sure yet. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Please just keep us posted. Thank you. All right. On Tuesday I spoke with staff about the Planning Commission having a holiday of sorts or a day off during the month of July, possibly August, if that would be your preference. I realize that we did not have some meetings in the late winter, early spring of this year, but we were ready, willing, and able to go forth. And I'm suggesting, and staff believes that this is doable, with not significant rearrangement of the planned items, that we could take either the 7th of July or the 21st of July off. What is the feeling of the Planning Commission of whether we should take a day off and, if so, which one of those would be preferred? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would prefer the 21st because I will not be here, but that's just my preference. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: What are the options? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Seventh and the 21st. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm generally gone the last half of July as well. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well, then that's two people who've got a problem with the 7th. COMMISSIONER SHEA: What about the 4th of August? I know you want July, but... CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, I didn't -- 4th of August is fine with me. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Because I won't be here. I can't make the 4th. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You can't make the 4th? COMMISSIONER SHEA: So it would be a good one for me to have canceled. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We've got two who can't make the 21st and one who can't -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Make the 4th. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- make the 4th of August. Well, without -- it sounds like the 21st would be the best day just numerically. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What are the days -- the Board takes their holiday at the end of July and the first week of August, don't they? I can't remember -- MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The Board has one meeting on July 12th and no meetings in August. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So, then, without objection, staff, we will -- we'll cancel the meeting of July 21st. Thank you very much. Approval of minutes, we have none before us today. BCC report, recaps, Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. On March 22nd, the Board of County Commissioners approved the PUD amendment for the 7-Eleven, a commercial PUD. That was a minor change dealing with 5.A.a Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 6 of 65 the drive-through lanes. That was approved on the summary agenda. The Board also approved on their summary agenda LDC amendments for the Bayshore. That LDC amendment primarily dealt with adding prohibited uses. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Chairman's report, none today. Consent agenda, none today. In fact, we haven't really had any consent-agenda items for many, many months, it seems. I guess that's a good thing. ***Public hearings advertised, having switched our agenda around, the first matter is going to be PL20210000979. It's the Palisades RPUD-Z. All those wishing to testify in this matter, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Ex parte disclosures starting with Mr. Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER FRY: Staff materials and a conversation with Ms. Crespo. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Staff materials, staff meeting, and conversations with Ms. Crespo. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke to Ms. Crespo. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Same; staff material and spoke with Ms. Crespo. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I spoke with staff and reviewed the packet. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Are we having a technical difficulty? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: I'm trying to get rid of the arrow. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. We'll begin with the applicant's presentation. Ms. Crespo, you may proceed. MS. CRESPO: Thank you. Good morning. Alexis Crespo with -- I was going to say Waldrop Engineering, but we've been re-branded to RVI Planning and Landscape Architecture. I'm joined today by the project team as well as the applicant. Kevin Brown and James Nulf are here. They are with Yarberry Partners, LLC, which is the ownership entity as well as the applicant for this project, and they're better known as Seagate Development throughout the Southwest Florida area. Also, Jackie Larocque is our director of engineering at Atwel and did all the civil plans for the project, and Jim Banks is here, who prepared the traffic study for the zoning. Just a little bit on Seagate before we get into the details of the request. Seagate has done a number of high-end residential projects within Collier County as well as the greater Southwest Florida area. They've developed single-family home product in Talis Park as well as in Quail West. And the best analogue for the proposed rezoning today is their Windward Isles project, which is less than a mile from the Palisades rezoning location. It's located at Airport-Pulling and Orange Blossom. This was a small infill project with single-family detached, very similar to what they're looking to develop on Palisades, and it's completely sold out. And you can see from the images here they're looking to do a very high-quality single-family product. The project location is outlined in yellow on your slide. It's 12 acres in size. It's located on the west side of Yarberry Lane, which is a two-lane public roadway. This is very much an infill project. We've got multifamily at densities of 12 units per acre to our south. To our west we have the Mill Run single-family community, and to our north we have Jehovah's Witness church, and you can see some remaining single-family lots on the east side of Yarberry there. The majority of this property was purchased by Seagate from the fire district. Those of you who have been on the Board for a while may recall the fire district seeking to rezone this property for a fairly intensive not only fire station but training facility. That ultimately was not well received by the community, and the district sold about nine acres to Seagate, and they also were able to acquire some additional lands to create the 12-acre project you see there on the screen. This next slide is an illustrative version of the proposed PUD master concept plan. You can see the entrance is from Yarberry Lane. We have a single point of ingress/egress. We would 5.A.a Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 7 of 65 intend to gate this. And just a fairly simple layout due to the size of the property, including private internal roadways, and then residential houses abutting those roadways. We are seeking a deviation for the dead-end that would provide access to one unit, and we are also seeking a deviation to have the 6-foot-wide sidewalk on one side of the entry road, which staff is recommending approval of those requests, as well as a 50-foot-wide internal right-of-way, which is fairly consistent for small infill projects of this character. I will note that we are in the urban residential subdistrict. We are allowed up to four units per acre. That would warrant up to 48 units on this property. We did reduce the density below what we could be seeking to 36 single-family units, and that was based upon the product type that Seagate intends to build but also to ensure compatibility and consistency with some of the lower density single-family to our west. This is our PUD master plan you see within your packets. It's the more digitalized version. I will note that there's a very nominal amount of on-site native vegetation. It warrants only 0.3 acres of indigenous preservation for the site, and so we're handling that through a monetary donation to the county, as certainly there wouldn't be a great benefit to providing such little preserve on the property. I do want to point out the buffers. And we are making an additional commitment that was not in your package. I'll go back to the illustrative version. We are doing a 15-foot-wide Type D right-of-way buffer along the Yarberry frontage as well as Type B buffers to our south as well as to our north buffering those multifamily and institution uses. Along all those property lines we are seeking an optional 6- to 8-foot-tall fence or wall. This would be for decorative purposes, aesthetics, screen and buffer noise from the streets, et cetera. To our west we have Mill Run, which we did work with that community extensively through this process. We are proposing a 10-foot Type A buffer to supplement their existing buffer, and we're also committing to a 6- to 8-foot concrete wall along that shared property line. So we're not seeking the flexibility of having that be optional, nor are we seeking a fence there. It will be a wall, and we can certainly bring that forward when we get to the board level. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea. Oh, they haven't switched you around. Sorry. Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: I believe it was me. Question. Just -- could you go back one page to that -- so the -- around the perimeter, are you saying there would be a wall around that entire perimeter? MS. CRESPO: We are requesting an optional fence or wall along the northeast and south. Along the western boundary with Mill Run we are proposing a 6- to 8-foot required wall. COMMISSIONER FRY: Required wall. And would that wall be what the people in Mill Run see, or would it be on the other side of some buffering -- some landscape buffering that you provide? MS. CRESPO: It would be -- there would be -- some of our landscaping would be on the exterior of the wall and, additionally, they have existing buffering along their property line. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. So they're not staring at a blank wall from their properties? MS. CRESPO: Correct. And they were pretty strongly in support of having that wall feature, so... COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Alexis, I'm going to ask what I asked you on the phone as well. Just for the record, my question to you was: This could have been done relatively easy by submitting a PPL, a plat and plan, except for the deviations and, I think, for the buffer. But -- so for all intents and purposes, if this doesn't pass, you still could go in and develop this property as requested through a simple plat and plan submittal under the existing zoning; is that correct? MS. CRESPO: We would have to do one-acre lots, so -- 5.A.a Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 8 of 65 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: One-acre lots. MS. CRESPO: -- that would be the key difference. So we are seeking a smaller lot size, which is very commensurate to what -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Why -- I don't understand. You could still -- this is one -- this is three units per acre. MS. CRESPO: Your Growth Management Plan allows the 48 units, but the zoning is RS-1, which is a minimum one-acre lot size. But you're correct that the Comprehensive Plan would support 48 lots. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Are the lots there existing now one acre? MS. CRESPO: They don't exist today. The property's not been platted. Mike, did you want to -- MR. BOSI: Commissioner Schmitt, I think, just to reiterate Alexis' point, it's zoned RSF-1, so you could only have one unit per acre by the current zoning. So they could only get 12 units based upon the 12 acres that the current project is. The Future Land Use Map would allow for four units per acre. They are seeking a rezone to a PUD that's going to allow for three units per acre, one unit below what they're -- per acre that they're allowed for. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And to restate, what could have -- easily be just a submittal to come in for a rezoning to RSF-3. But in this case you're going to PUD. MR. BOSI: Correct. MS. CRESPO: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just for some of the other specifics that you're asking for in the -- so it's a nonissue. But I just wanted to make it clear to my colleagues that this would be relatively easy just to come in and do a rezone -- and thanks for that correction -- to RSF-3 rather than PUD. The other question I asked -- and just for the record. This is in a wellfield risk management special treatment overlay area, but staff will very judiciously review that as part of the review process to make sure there's no impacts. MS. CRESPO: Yes, correct, as part of the PPL. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I was going to make that same record, but thank you. Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I'm a little slower. I don't have the history and the understanding. Why does Growth Management say you can do this amount and zoning doesn't agree? Shouldn't zoning support the Growth Management Plan? MR. BOSI: It does. It says you're allowed up to four units per acre. The current zoning allows for one unit per acre. It's not inconsistent. It's just less than what's allowed for. Most of the parcels within Collier County are developed at less than what the -- not most, but there's a number of parcels that the zoning is less intensive than what the Future Land Use Element would provide for. A great example of that is anytime that you have a parcel that's seeking a rezone from ag, ag within your urban area is really just a holding pattern until it is going to seek the type of density and intensity that the Future Land Use map would allow for. So it's not uncommon that you'll have leftover pieces of land that haven't been developed that will have a zoning designation that's less intense than what the Future Land Use map would allow for. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So what does the county infrastructure plan for; the zoning plan or the Growth Management Plan if you were planning a water/sewer, anything? MR. BOSI: It utilizes both. It utilizes -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: How do you do that? MR. BOSI: It utilizes both. It utilizes -- the checkbook concurrency is related to the zoning of the property, and then the ultimate demands and intensities that are allowed for within the Future Land Use map are incorporated with into the calculations as to what potentially will be needed. And then as zoning moves forward, it starts to adjust a bit. So it utilizes both the intensity of the current zoning as well as the anticipation of what could be allowed for from the 5.A.a Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 9 of 65 Future Land Use map. And when they go through the rezoning process, we do a -- we do a courtesy checkbook concurrency analysis to make sure there's enough infrastructure available. But when they actually submit a plat or an SDP, if it's a multifamily project, that's when the checkbook concurrency is actually applied and the capacity of the road system, the capacity of the utility system, the capacity of the park system, of all the components that we have contained, schools, within our checkbook concurrency are required to be satisfied. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Ms. Crespo. MS. CRESPO: Thank you. And you bring up a good point, Mr. Shea, that the proposed rezoning and the proposed PUD will be more consistent with the Growth Management Plan than the large lots in place today per the RSF-1 zoning. To touch on neighborhood outreach, we met with the neighbors even before we filed the application. We understood they were very heavily engaged when the fire district owned the property, so we met with them, got input on buffers and things of that nature. We did a follow-up NIM as required by the county process and then had further meetings with the HOA members. So certainly took the time to explain how the project will function in relation to their own. They had questions about stormwater management. Our team is here to answer any of those, but certainly we are going to secure the necessary district permits from South Florida as well as -- and get our county plans and plat approval, which will evaluate stormwater management. And we certainly have a large lake system on the property which will catch, hold the water, and outfall away from Mill Run. So we believe we've resolved those concerns. And I've noted we are committing to the installation of that wall along the western boundary per their request. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. One question regarding -- you had a neighbor complain or had an issue believing that they might be impacted by runoff from this project. Have you clarified that with the property owner, or are they here today? MS. CRESPO: I don't see them here today. Oh, yes, he is. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. They're here. We'll hear what he has to say. But just for the gentleman that's going to speak, it's clear the county will strictly enforce there absolutely cannot be any runoff onto the neighboring property, and that will be reviewed, and as part of the stormwater management plan, that is submitted as part of the environmental resource permit process through the South Florida Water Management District, which is your responsibility, correct? MS. CRESPO: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And so it's clearly enforceable from the standpoint of the ERP, and the ERP should validate that the stormwater is required to be retained on site and then treated, released as appropriate. MS. CRESPO: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'd be interested to hear what the gentleman has to say when he speaks. Did you sign up to speak? MR. LOERZEL: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good. Please continue. MS. CRESPO: So I'm ready to conclude here. We are consistent with your Growth Management Plan as we've discussed here already that we are below the maximum allowable density. We've addressed compatibility with the surrounding church, single-family and multifamily. We have a mix of uses around us. We are doing single-family detached, which is entirely consistent and complementary to Mill Run to our west. And this will allow for good infill 5.A.a Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 10 of 65 development in an area of the county well served by public utilities, infrastructure, and services, and close to shopping and employment. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: So a mandatory wall on the west side between you and Mill Run, an optional wall on the north, the south, and I think you said the east as well. So clarify how it is determined whether a wall goes in on those optional sides. MS. CRESPO: That's largely done through our landscape architects through what we call the site enhancement plan process where the client picks the vernacular, and we look at different fencing types. Maybe it's wrought iron, maybe it's Olde Florida style, and we look at different ways of incorporating that into the landscape palette to make for a beautiful community and good views from the rear yards of our homes and also obscure and screen views from surrounding properties. Sometimes fencing and walls can be costly, so we certainly want to leave ourselves flexible as things get -- continually going up in price through the development process. COMMISSIONER FRY: So knowing that they're more expensive, are you saying there are circumstances where you would decide to spend that extra money for the benefit of your owners rather than just to protect the outside? Because I can't see a developer wanting to spend the extra money, if they don't have to, to protect the view from people outside of the development, but I can see it if they were preserving and enhancing the interests of the people that are buying their property. So, I guess, clarify that for me. I guess my question is, if it's optional, can we just assume that it never happens, or does it actually -- is it actually viable that a wall of some kind or a fence would go in to this property? MS. CRESPO: I think it's -- I think -- I believe it's intended -- and we have submitted our plans and plat that we're going to do fencing along the north, south, and east, and then we're -- and you've hit it right on, these are going to be very nice homes with a high price point. And Seagate is looking to protect the value of those lots, their view. So we see this wall as mutually beneficial, so we're happy to work with the neighbors and offer that up. But also, yes, it's very much for sales within this community. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anything further? MS. CRESPO: No, sir. We are in agreement with staff, we appreciate all that staff does, and we would respectfully request your recommendation of approval. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. No one is signaling at this time. Any planning commissioner wish to be heard? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, then we'll hear from staff. MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners. And, for the record, I'm Nancy Gundlach, principal planner with the Zoning Division. And staff is recommending approval of the Palisades PUD. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. GUNDLACH: And it would be our pleasure to answer any questions you might have. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Nancy, would staff -- because this is within the density allowed by the Growth Management Plan but it's above what's allowed by the current zoning, would staff automatically approve that increase up to the limit of the Growth Management Plan amendment? I guess I'm -- you know, we sit here and we only hear things that have passed all of your vetting, and they almost always come in with your recommendation for approval. So I sit and I see everything comes in with, I guess, increasing densities, and we don't stop a lot of them. We don't -- we have to find justification or some kind of a problem with it. You 5.A.a Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 11 of 65 guys do a great job of vetting things, but how do you determine what a reasonable density is when the zoning and the GMP don't match? MS. GUNDLACH: Well, in this case -- would you like to answer that, Mike? I was just -- MR. BOSI: What I was going to say, when we have an applicant like this, the first thing that we look at is the surrounding land uses, and then we look at what's being proposed, how does that measure up against those surrounding land uses. And in this case it's comparable in density to the density that's provided for within the south. It's comparable within the density that's provided to the west, an institutional use to the north of it, and lower density to the east. And then we look at buffering. How does buffering help to soften the edges of the development, and how does it blend within the overall land-use pattern within the area? And then we look at the infrastructure that's available and the type of traffic that would be associated with it. This, with only 36 units, a very low trip count associated with it on a local road, we find it appropriate. And then because it's residential use against residential use, we find that there's general compatibility within that measure, a general compatibility within the density, and then the type of buffering that's being provided to soften, like I said, and provide for some visual screening for the interior and the exterior of the properties are all the parts of the equation that are evaluated. So when it gets to you, those have been worked out with the applicant based upon the things that we've heard from the surrounding property owners, and that's why, traditionally, what you're going to receive from the planning staff is if it's -- if it's consistent with the Growth Management Plan, we've worked out those other compatibility issues to ensure that it could be a fit within the overall general neighborhood. COMMISSIONER FRY: So would it be safe to summarize this from staff's viewpoint that you really found no -- no issues to take pause at on this application? It was -- it's a relatively benign application in your opinion? MR. BOSI: This is the type of development that we would expect to see within this infill property based upon the surrounding nature and the mature nature of this area. CHAIRMAN FRYER: County Attorney? MR. KLATZKOW: I don't disagree with a single thing Michael said. But I will tell you I've been sitting in this chair now for over 16 years, and when the policy of the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Commission is not to grant density, staff has generally not recommended the density, and when the policy of the Board of County Commissioners has been to grant density and this board has recommended that, then staff, over time, has recommended increased density. So this staff, like all staff, and myself included, by the way, okay, we conform -- we conform ourselves to what the Board direction is, Board of County Commissioners direction, because at the end of the day we work for the Board, and we are here to implement Board direction. So, yes, you will not get staff at this point in time opposing many density requests since I can't remember the last time the Board of County Commissioners denied a petition based on density. Prior boards did, but that was a different time in the county, and the current board, the policy is pro-growth. It just is. But that board is basing a lot of its decisions on your recommendations, and you are the Planning Commission, okay. And you're here to give the Board your best planning advice. That -- what I'm telling you is just the reality of the situation. All staff, including myself, we conform to the Board direction. And if you do not, you will not be with the county very long, which I think is the appropriate thing, because we're all here to serve the Board. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: It seems as though if we looked at the map, you know, 5.A.a Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 12 of 65 based on what the attorney just said, it just kind of raises the issue. So if you kind of think about it, if we looked at the same map and we looked at the surrounding parcels or surrounding land uses and all of those had maintained the RSF-1, and then you had this little island in the middle of land uses that were all RSF-1, then you might reach a different conclusion because it seems to be, well, wait, this is -- you know, one of these things is not like the others. You know, when we're little we learn a lot, you know, and those lessons carry forward. So it seems like that's -- and that's what you've stated. That's how you do your analysis. Is this going to somehow change the character and the nature of this area, and if the surrounding uses are -- you know, some of which are even more dense, you know, then that's a way to analyze compatibility. And I think it would be harder to come before us and say -- you know, you'd have to have a reason, I think -- under the code you'd have to have a reason to justify why it's not compatible. Now, there could be, you know, dozens of reasons that you could suggest incompatibility, but based on that surrounding land use, it seems like that's something that we should factor in and that the staff has been factoring in. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. No one else is signaling at this point. Staff, anything further? MS. GUNDLACH: No, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Mr. Youngblood, who do we have? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, I have one registered speaker, Pete Loerzel. Did I pronounce that correctly? MR. LOERZEL: That's correct. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: This will be our only registered speaker for this item. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. All that I would ask, sir, before you start speaking is that you spell your name, your last name. MR. LOERZEL: It's L-o-e-r-z-e-l. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. LOERZEL: So first name is Pete. And I'm a resident at 7085 Mill Run Circle, which is a property that borders the western side of the proposed Palisades development. And I'm speaking on behalf of all the residents who live along that same common property line. And we had three topics today, including site drainage, streetlights, and fencing. And, apparently, the fencing issue has been addressed by Ms. Crespo, so we'll skip that one for now. But the predominant issue we had was the site drainage. So this involves a berm that is along the entire western border of the proposed development, and it's approximately 800 feet long and about 14 feet wide. And as far as we can tell, there's no existing plans or available plans that show any specific provision for the accommodation of runoff water from this berm onto the neighboring or the Mill Run Circle properties. So the berm actually slopes down directly to the property line that is common to both communities. So we've listed a couple of reasons why we -- why we think this is a problem. But as a preface to this, we did have a discussion with the developer's rep, Ms. Crespo, and two engineers who came to our community. And this topic was brought up, and there was no -- there was no solution offered for our concerns on this. So starting with the specifics, assuming that this sloped berm is covered in some form of erosion mitigating material or grass, the relative steepness of the berm will shed water. It's a three and 12 slope, which is fairly steep. It happens to be as much as three times as steep as the neighboring Mill Run properties and, of course, when the water hits the bottom of that berm, it's going to move to the path of least resistance, which would be the Mill Run properties. So we did a little calculation on the accumulation of water on this berm. And under a 5.A.a Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 13 of 65 one-inch rain event, the berm, which is approximately 11,200 square feet of space or a little bit more than a quarter of an acre, would accumulate about 6,900 gallons of water, which is about half the volume of a typical swimming pool. So during the rainy season when the ground's saturated, that would create a substantial amount of standing water, likely attracting mosquitoes, damaging and ultimately killing landscaping. So we've also noted that the submittals to the Planning Department include several documents which describe the drainage condition of that property as poor. Additionally, there's a layer of cap rock or limestone just a few feet below the surface of that property, which would capture water and increase saturation rates and, you know, create standing water for longer periods of time. And we've actually experienced this over decades where that water in those large lots stands for weeks or months at a time. And, fortunately, it's been very shallow because it's spread out over very large areas. But back to the slope of the berm, since the berm is there, it's pushing all the water from the berm into the Mill Run properties. So the Mill Run residents now have to deal with the accumulation of water on their own properties as well as the runoff from the adjacent community. So taking all these together, we believe that the direct discharge of runoff water into the -- into the Mill Run Circle properties is an unreasonable solution to their problem of drainage, and we would ask that the developer provide some kind of substantive solution to retain or divert -- retain and divert, preferably, all the runoff from the encroaching division. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Pete -- and I'll call you Pete because I didn't catch the pronunciation of your last name. MR. LOERZEL: That's all right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So your request is basically for them to deal with the runoff? MR. LOERZEL: Exactly. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But as far as zoning and planning review, that is not part of the zoning and planning review process. MR. LOERZEL: We have no issues with the zoning at this time. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So it's going to be developed in some form or fashion with housing. MR. LOERZEL: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Either through RSF-3 rezoning or this PUD. MR. LOERZEL: Yeah. Our concern is specific to the site improvements. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The engineer of record for this development, as I stated previously, has to submit what is called an environmental resource permit, and that permit application has to quantify and qualify all the runoff and the plan for storage, retention, detention, and release of stormwater. That plan does not go to the county; it goes to the South Florida Water Management District. It is a fully advertised public process. MR. LOERZEL: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So I'm not sure what you want of us other than we recognize that they have to go through that process. MR. LOERZEL: Absolutely. And we're here -- we're here to get our concerns on record. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. I understand. MR. LOERZEL: Yeah, yeah. There seems to be no other forum. At the time they're from -- according to the Planning Department, this is the only meeting associated with this, the only hearing associated with this development. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's not really correct. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 14 of 65 CHAIRMAN FRYER: There will be a board hearing. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We do have a public hearing process when they go through the environmental resource permit. MR. LOERZEL: Yeah. So I was told specifically by Nancy Gundlach that this would be the only public hearing. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's the only -- well, it's the -- there will be a follow-on public hearing through the Board of County Commissioners -- MR. LOERZEL: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- for the approval of this whether it's -- if we vote unanimously to approve, it typically goes on the consent agenda, but it can be pulled from the consent agenda. MR. LOERZEL: And this topic came up with the discussion with Nancy from the Planning Department, and she said if I want my concerns on -- or our concerns on record, we better show up and -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I recognize that. Alexis, is your engineer here to discuss the process? MS. LAROCQUE: I'm here. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I think it would be appropriate just to put on the record, because the engineer, the licensed professional, has to submit and go through the process and go through the environmental resource -- ERP process, which deals with runoff. The unfortunate piece is, when you look at this from an engineering perspective, your community -- how old is it, 20, 25 years old? MR. LOERZEL: Thirty-plus. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, it's under, certainly, different development criteria. MR. LOERZEL: So, I mean, that community was built adjacent to large estate lots effectively -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MR. LOERZEL: -- right, and there was no need or requirement to fill those lots completely, so they retained large areas of flat, low-lying ground which absorb -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But, in reality, some of your water was actually going into that property. MR. LOERZEL: As it stands now, I don't -- I don't believe that's the case. Every property there virtually has some kind of small berming which retains runoff from the properties and keeps water from the adjacent properties from coming into ours. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Because you're going to be dealing with -- this is certainly different development criteria. The base flood elevation in this area -- MR. LOERZEL: I agree. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- is probably seven, eight feet now compared to probably what you're at. But I think for the record -- MR. LOERZEL: Nonetheless, we have a piece of land that has no drainage provision, so we're just making a note of it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would like for the engineer to state on the record the process that she will go through as far as getting the -- certifying that the drainage and runoff and the process through the South Florida Water Management District. So if we could have the engineer -- but I thank you for your comments and appreciate you putting them on the record. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And thank you, Commissioner Schmitt. Points well taken. One slight correction I'd like to make, though, is even if we were to vote unanimously to approve this, if there's an official public objection, it will not go on consent. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct, it will not go on consent. CHAIRMAN FRYER: The gentlemen, Mr. Loerzel, even if he were the single objector, would be able to keep this off of consent, and there would be another hearing before the Board of 5.A.a Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 15 of 65 County Commissioners. And before we go back, I've got Commissioner Fry who would like to be heard. COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, I just -- I find it to be a very interesting question for the reason that I feel the neighboring homeowners in most cases rejoice at the thought of a berm and a wall as a shield from the new development. And I never have had this -- we've never had this viewpoint expressed where the runoff from the berm itself became a water drainage issue. So I'm keenly interested in hearing the answer to that. I did want to ask you, sir -- maybe just nod. Is your wife a schoolteacher? Do you have a wife that's a schoolteacher? Yes. If -- she's Angela -- MR. LOERZEL: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- both of my kids had her at Pelican Marsh. She's a wonderful teacher. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: There you go. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes. And I appreciate her -- what she does. In a big way. She's -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Now you have him as a commissioner. We'll see how that works out. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, please. MS. LAROCQUE: Good morning. For the record, Jackie Larocque, the Atwel Group. I am the engineer of record for this job. I understand the concerns. We've met with the neighboring community. We've talked through it. Per state and local regulations, we have to meet certain criteria. We have to meet or perimeter berm minimums. We have to meet our road elevation minimums. There is certain permitting that we go through. We go through the county; they review everything. We go through South Florida Water Management; they review everything. We do have to get to a berm elevation. Naples is historically low. We have to bring fill onto the site. In order to do that, to get to that elevation, you have to build a perimeter berm. There is a back slope area that, in South Florida, that's how every project is built. You have to get to your berm elevation, and then you fill the rest of your site. We are bringing import fill in for this job. It is an open space area. It will be vegetated. The amount of water on the back slope is a negligible amount of water compared to what we're containing on site, treating and discharging off of -- to Yarberry. So I hope that helps clarify. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: So it is -- as we understand, it's been stated a number of times, that your requirement for the development is that you have no runoff to the -- no net runoff to the neighboring community. Is that an accurate statement? MS. LAROCQUE: That is an accurate statement. The runoff -- and so the way we do our calculations are we do it for the entire project area. There is a small amount of area that the water physically cannot get to the pond to get treated, and that is this back slope area. But when we do our calculations and we run our math, we include that area as overcompensation within our storage, within our lake. But there is that back slope area that is open space that when it does rain it will go into the ground and, you know -- and the existing soil conditions today are rock. It's Naples. Everything -- there's a rock layer, but we are bringing fill into the site. We're bringing that good soil in that the water will permeate into. COMMISSIONER FRY: So when you say it's a negligible amount, I mean, how do you define -- I mean, this sounds like there's a reality on every project. If there is a berm, there's a little bit of water. It's going to run down that back slope to the neighboring community. Net, net, you're keeping all your property [sic] in the property. You have excess capacity in your lake to hold the water if it was running into the lake, but it isn't. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 16 of 65 MS. LAROCQUE: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: It's running to the neighbors. So I guess it's just a -- it's just a necessary result of the design that a little bit of water does run into the neighboring properties. MS. LAROCQUE: Yep. And every project in Southwest Florida is constructed this way. Mill Run has a perimeter berm. Mill Run has the same situation that we do. Their perimeter berm requirements might not be as high as ours, but they have a perimeter berm. They have a back slope that, right now, slopes onto the Seagate property. And so it's the same condition on every construction project in Southwest Florida. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is your back slope running into their back slope? MS. LAROCQUE: I don't have a back slope right now. When we -- COMMISSIONER FRY: When you build it, would your back slope -- MS. LAROCQUE: It will create a V. COMMISSIONER FRY: It will create a V. MS. LAROCQUE: It will create a V. COMMISSIONER FRY: So theoretically -- MR. LOERZEL: That's incorrect. COMMISSIONER FRY: That's incorrect, okay. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER FRY: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right now is there any runoff from these homes that are to the -- presuming to the west if the aerial photo is oriented north. Those homes, are they currently, you know, draining into this site, the petitioner's -- your site? MS. LAROCQUE: So right now Mill Run has -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, I'm just saying, you know, like they've been elevated a little bit, I'm sure, and I would assume -- MS. LAROCQUE: Yeah, yeah. Mill Run today -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- that there's some sort of -- MS. LAROCQUE: -- has a water management system established, and they have a perimeter berm, and their back slope does the exact same situation. It comes onto our property right now. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. So I just think that's the -- like you already said, that's the nature of it, and I just -- I don't understand how the neighbor has to then fix the mutual issue. I mean, that would be my -- you know, my take on this is that, yes, there's -- you know, when you have everybody using their property in a similar way, you're obviously going to have -- everybody's property is elevated because we need to do that, and so there's naturally going to be drainage. And these existing homes are right now draining into this site. So it seems as though, you know, now that that site wants to use its own property, they are allowed to make it so that they address those issues. So I don't -- I understand that it might create an issue for the adjacent, you know -- and it seems to be, you know, a small issue, but that's the nature of developing land. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Bellows? MR. BELLOWS: On Page 4 of 18 of your staff report, there's a cross-section showing the typical wall cross-section and the back slopes for both properties. You could see that there's a 3-to-1 slope proposed for this project and an existing back slope -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I have to find the page. I'm not sure where you're talking about. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Can you put it up on the -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What page did you say? 418? MR. BELLOWS: Four of 18. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. I was looking for 418. And say that again then, 5.A.a Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 17 of 65 since now I'm looking at it. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. You see the typical wall cross-sections, and it talks about the perimeter berm elevation of 15.25 and the 25-year minimum berm elevation of 14.00 NAVD. You see the proposed wall optional, and they're -- they're going to make it -- MS. LAROCQUE: Committed. MR. BELLOWS: -- committed wall, thank you. And you could see the 3-to-1 slope. And then going towards the inside of the project, it's a 4-to-1 max slope. So the berms create slopes on both sides of the wall. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anything further, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, not from me. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So I don't have the drawing, but it sounds like you have two berms creating a swale. Where does that go? MS. LAROCQUE: It's an open-space area, so it goes into the ground. COMMISSIONER SHEA: You just said it's full of rock. MS. LAROCQUE: Well, with the fill that's going in, and it -- so it's open space. And it permeates into the ground over time, and it will evaporate, go into the ground. COMMISSIONER SHEA: But it will pond a lot after storms. MS. LAROCQUE: After a heavy storm, there could be ponding. MR. BELLOWS: Just to add further comment, if they developed current zoning, they would have a similar wall/berm combination anyways, so it makes no difference in regard to the rezoning application. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Sure. COMMISSIONER FRY: But I think the point you're making is that he's concerned that water from your project will end up in his backyard, not just captured by their downslope of their berm. And to me -- I don't want to make a mountain out of a molehill, but to me that's an important point if the requirement is that you don't infiltrate their property with water. So I guess my question really is for staff is, how is this assured that it -- that they don't have a detrimental effect from this design moving forward? MR. KLATZKOW: Because they have to get a permit, and the permit gets reviewed by the regulatory agencies, and as long as they sign off, we're done. This is a zoning issue. The water's not a zoning issue. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. MR. KLATZKOW: The water is a regulatory issue that will be taken care of during the process. COMMISSIONER FRY: And that is -- and this exact issue is part of their consideration, I'm assuming? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. MR. BOSI: And for both properties -- both projects, the Mill Run, they have a downward slope to this area. So right now they're displacing their water to their adjoining property. The wall's going to be constructed on top of the berm. It's going to pond to sort of a V, the swale, towards where that water is intended -- both -- the amount of water that was calculated that was cited was half of a swimming pool that he mentioned. That's spread over 800 -- 800 linear feet of this berm. So the amount of water that's being displaced towards the Mill Run -- towards the Mill Run project is pretty minimal; whereas, their overall design of their system has it sloping down towards the bottom of where this swale is going to be. To me, I think it's a de minimus issue. I do agree that they -- there is some water that is displaced towards the Mill Run project, but they're doing the same -- but their design of their stormwater system is doing the same thing towards this project. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 18 of 65 MR. KLATZKOW: This is not a zoning issue at this point, is what I'm saying, okay. And we can talk about it, but I will tell you that we have older communities throughout the county that get flooded because newer counties [sic] had to build up to current standards. In fact, when we put a road in and we're building the road up to it, we need to build it up, that may lead to some flooding issues for adjoining properties. But the fact that you have an older community that didn't build up to current standards does not prevent somebody building up to today's current standards from having to develop their property. It is not a zoning issue. It is a regulatory issue that's taken care of by I believe -- is it the states or feds, Mike, that issue these permits? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's basically what I stated, Jeff. MR. KLATZKOW: I know, but -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's a permitting process. MR. KLATZKOW: You know -- you used to run this show, so you know exactly what the process is, Joe, but your knowledge base is real -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And also my experience in the federal government and -- MR. KLATZKOW: It's relatively rare. But what I'm saying, this is not a zoning issue. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's not a zoning issue. It's a regulatory issue, and it is strictly enforced. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anything further from staff on this issue? MR. BOSI: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And, Ms. Crespo, do you want to start a rebuttal now? Well, let me just check with Mr. Youngblood. Any further speakers? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: (Shakes head.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anybody in the room wish to be heard on this matter which hasn't signed up as a speaker, now would be the time. Raise your hand, please. If not -- (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Nothing further from staff. Ms. Crespo, did you want to rebut? MS. CRESPO: Thank you. I just want to put on the record we're in agreement with staff. This is de minimus in terms of the amount of water we're speaking of. This is part of the calculations that go into the district. They're looking at what's going -- the vast majority going into the site as well as what's being on this back slope. So this is all very closely reviewed. It's been noted. What I would like to note is Mr. Loerzel did not object to the rezoning. He actually stated on the record he did not oppose the rezoning. I hope that can be incorporated into the record so that we may be on consent. Because, again, this is a good infill project, compatible, consistent with the neighborhood, and we are consistent with your Comp Plan and Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. I just would like -- you know, I would just like to understand what we've been talking about, even if it isn't necessarily what we're voting on. And maybe you can help me understand. So, obviously, we have the fence, and then we have -- it's built upon a berm, and then there's a slope. And we're talking about the outer boundary side slope that slopes down. And then on the other side, we have a -- so the boundary -- is the boundary between the two properties where the two down slopes meet for the two properties? MS. CRESPO: Yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. So we have water that's coming from the adjacent property headed towards your property that you're representing. And so both sides are burdening what is going to become a swale. So, I mean, I just -- the whole thing, the idea that it's the new party's responsibility, I just -- you know, I just have a problem with that. I certainly understand it. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 19 of 65 There might be more water than they're used to now. There probably will be. And, you know, that's a design issue from -- you know, again, I guess, the solution would be to not -- you know, to have -- to not follow the code so that the -- you know, there's not -- it's not built high, and I don't think that is a solution. So I guess all I'm saying is even if it presents problems, that's -- again, that's the nature of your neighbors using their land. If your neighborhoods take land and decide to develop it, it will definitely have an impact, and you follow the code and, you know, you follow -- you know, again, there will be an assessment by the people that do water -- you know, water management, and if there ends up being, you know, more water on the neighboring property, then that might be something they have to address. But I'm sure we have a process. I'm sure this isn't the first time. I'm sure this is actually -- this happens all the time. We now have somebody bringing to our attention -- a resident bringing it to our attention that there is an impact. And I think, yeah, oh, okay, we all know that, and I don't think that it's our job to address it in this forum to try to resolve the fact that there might be an impact. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Then without objection, we'll close the public comment portion of this hearing and take up our deliberation and entertain a motion as appropriate. Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes, I'd like to make a motion to approve PL20210000979, Palisades RPUD, for approval as subject to -- and I don't believe I heard any corrections on the record, but subject to the deviations as approved by staff. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And the -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: There were a few changes to the buffer and the wall on their plan. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, thank you. Changes to the buffer and the wall that was put on the record. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, a mandatory 6 to 8 foot. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you very much, applicant. Thank you, public. Let's see. We -- Mr. Yovanovich, are you here? MR. YOVANOVICH: I am. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Are you -- would you like to start now, or we could loop back and do the thing that we pushed to the last if you would rather start after the break. Approach so that we can have you on the mic. COMMISSIONER FRY: I feel like this is the longest I've gone almost two years between seeing Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: I hope you didn't get too used to it. We'd like to go ahead and 5.A.a Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 20 of 65 start -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Fair enough. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- and possibly finish. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. Let me call this matter now. ***This is a companion, the third and fourth items -- actually, they're the second and third now that we've adjusted the agenda. PL20200000115, which is a large-scale Growth Management Plan amendment, the Collier Boulevard Lords Way mixed-use subdivision coming back to us on the question of adoption, and PL20200000114, the Collier Boulevard Lords Way MPUDA, which we are hearing for the first and only time. All those wishing to be heard on this matter, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Ex parte disclosures from the Planning Commission starting with Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials. COMMISSIONER FRY: Ditto. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Staff materials, staff meeting, and a conversation with the applicant's agent. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I also spoke to Mr. Yovanovich, not on the same call you did, but a separate call, just to be clear. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Just to be clear. Thank you. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Staff material and staff meeting. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. All right. Okay. MR. MULHERE: Good morning. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good morning. MR. MULHERE: For the record, Bob Mulhere with Hole Montes here on behalf of the applicant. With me this morning is David Torres, who is the applicant, as well as Gary Haines. Rich, he already spoke; he's our land-use attorney. Paula McMichael, who works with me at Hole Montes, I think you met a couple of weeks ago here. And Norm Trebilcock is our transportation consultant, and Matt DeFrancesco of Robau & Associates is the civil engineer on the project right there. I think by now you've already heard this petition once at transmittal. You know, the subject location, which is shown -- depicted on the site right along Collier Boulevard. So we are requesting a Growth Management Plan amendment. It's a large-scale amendment. That's why there are two sets of hearings, transmittal and adoption, which includes renaming the district to the Collier Boulevard Lords Way mixed-use subdistrict allowing for an additional 384 dwelling units not to exceed 9.7 units per acre. There is an existing church which, through this process, would be allowed to continue on an interim basis. Ultimately, the church would go away. And community-facility-related uses are being removed. I'll go over that in a little bit more detail in just a minute, and we're proposing to allow an assisted living facility as well as an option. So there's a companion. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik has a question. MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Just to make sure I understand. So we heard this already once? MR. MULHERE: You did. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. And so now you're coming back and those 384 is -- MR. MULHERE: Same number. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Is more -- it's the same number? Same number as the 5.A.a Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 21 of 65 original proposal? MR. MULHERE: Yes. There are a few changes, and I will go over those. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. MR. MULHERE: So the total project is 68.79 acres in size. It allows presently for a mix of community facilities as well as residential. Right now developed on the site there's a church with accessory facilities, a preserve, a boardwalk, communication tower, which will remain, obviously, and 296 multifamily dwelling units. This is the county's Future Land Use Map. And in -- right here -- and I don't know, I call that purple, but my colors aren't so great. But, anyway, that is the location of the subdistrict, just on the east side of Collier Boulevard heading north. So a little bit of history: In 1999, the project was rezoned to a PUD to allow for 120 campsite TTRVC park -- park units, a 400-room ALF, a 400-bed care unit facility -- and I'll go over those specific uses allowed under that -- and 57 multifamily units. In 2007, there was a Growth Management Plan amendment approved which created the Collier Boulevard community facilities subdistrict to allow for 368,000 square feet of church and church-related uses, also other institutional uses and residential uses, including 10 church-related residential uses and the 296 market-rate units and essential service personnel housing which exists -- which is -- developed and exists on the site. COMMISSIONER SHEA: How many of those units are there, the essential service ones? MR. MULHERE: Well, they're required -- just give me a second, and I'll give you -- I'm going to go over it in a minute, but since you asked the question -- 147 units are reserved for essential service of which 35 are income restricted to folks earning 140 percent or below of the average median income and 25 are restricted for essential service personnel earning at 80 percent or below of the average median income. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So that's a total of 60 of the 147? MR. MULHERE: Correct. And that -- and that is an existing condition. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. Please continue. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. In 2008, it was rezoned to -- this is the zoning rezoned to an MPUD to allow for a 2,200-seat church, 200-seat chapel, 300-student private school, 249-bed care unit, which included drug and alcohol rehab and counseling, residential drug and alcohol rehab and counseling, and a 300-unit daycare facility and, of course, the 296 multifamily units. In 2015, the PUD was again amended to revise the multifamily standards to add a new essential service personnel housing agreement, which we just discussed, to add a developer commitment related to reservation of right-of-way along the southern portion of the PUD, and a disclosure for the swamp buggy races, and a relocation of the existing access point. So this is the amended -- and I won't spend a lot of time. You've probably looked at it, but this is the amended subdistrict text. I will point out that about midway down, right here, you can see that we're eliminating those community facilities that were previously discussed and changing the density to -- from 306 to 690. This is a condition that talks about the existing church being able to continue for a maximum of five years as an interim use. These are the -- this is the strikethrough and elimination of the 368,000 square feet of institutional and nonresidential uses and some of the other uses that were quasi church related or institutional. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll wait till Bob's done because I want to make sure, on the record, that we note the change. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Okay. So these are the conditions that existed in No. 3 is the -- they were, do this or this or this. No. 3 is what was executed. So now we -- this is -- Commissioner Klucik, as well as all of the commissioners, this is 5.A.a Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 22 of 65 one of the differences or changes since you originally heard this, and it was a 4-1 vote to move forward with the transmittal, but there was a lot of discussion on the affordable housing commitment at the Planning Commission here and subsequently at the Board. So the condition that we have agreed to provides an option that is either rental or ownership, but the condition remains the same for either option of 76 units, which is 20 percent of the new units, to be designated for households whose income are between 80 and 120 percent of the average median income for Collier County for a period of 30 years. And, again, there's an option: If you build rental, 76; if you build fee simple, 76. So that was different than, I think, what we started with in our original application, which was, I believe, 10 percent. But based on the staff recommendation and the discussion at the Planning Commission and subsequently at the Board, we have agreed to provide the 20 percent. CHAIRMAN FRYER: If I may, just for clarification. MR. MULHERE: Sure. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Perhaps I'm repeating what you just said. But when this was before us the last time, looking at the 690 as the denominator, we had a numerator of 136, I think. The 25 plus 35 and -- MR. MULHERE: Sixty. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- yeah, 60, and so that -- that was around 10 percent. But now when you add the 76 in, you're getting very close to 20 percent of actual affordable housing. MR. MULHERE: You are right. It's 19.76, I believe. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's what I calculated. COMMISSIONER SHEA: That's pretty close. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Very close, yeah. Okay. MR. MULHERE: I did the math just a few minutes ago, because I knew it was going to come up. And I'm not good at math, so it took a -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, Ned, since you brought that up, just for clarification, the staff report indicated this was the transmittal in their staff report -- MR. MULHERE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- when, in fact, it's the adoption -- MR. MULHERE: Well -- thank you. I wanted to -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Because that needs to be clarified. It was on the -- on the staff report. So we've all heard this before, and you already pointed out the changes that the Board directed. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. I think typically the transmittal staff report would have been in your packet for adoption, but at the back, and it was -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The other way around. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, the shorter one. And it didn't have an actual recommendation. But I spoke with Mike and, you know, he confirmed to me that, yes, staff is recommending approval with this condition, for the record. He probably would have put that on the record anyway, but -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. The staff -- they put the transmittal first, and then you go down through our documents, and you actually -- it says "transmittal" again, which, in fact, is the April 7th for the Board today, and it's an -- it is the adoption hearing, which needs to be corrected. MR. MULHERE: I was going to mention it, because I just wanted to make sure that nobody got confused by that on the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, I didn't. I already informed staff they were supposed to put it on the record. I blame Mike. MR. MULHERE: He would have. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Zoning director. We were waiting for staff's turn to speak. CHAIRMAN FRYER: When I introduced it, Commissioner, I said it's here -- 5.A.a Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 23 of 65 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- in place of adoption. MR. MULHERE: Because I also spoke with Mike. So this is just continuing to show -- I don't want to spend a lot of time, but just point out, you know, here the strikethrough of a number of those other uses that were previously permitted such as alcohol rehabilitation centers, drug rehabilitation, so on and so forth, so... And so these are -- the communication tower already exists, so we're carrying that over, and this allows for single-family attached and multifamily dwellings as a permitted as well as an ALF as an option. And the interim use we already discussed. We do have a few deviations in there. The particular deviation that we'd like to discuss with you is Deviation No. 3, which requests to allow an off-premise directional sign in a nonresidential or agricultural zoning district to allow for one off-premise directional sign within the residential district to provide signage for developments located along the Lords Way. If you've been out to the site or you looked at the location map, the Lords Way has a number of uses, and all of those uses, you know, are accessed at various points along Lords Way, and Collier Boulevard is a 55-mile-an-hour six-lane roadway. And from a way-finding perspective, we think this is a very appropriate request. Staff that deals with issuance of signs at Collier County has not supported this request, and we think it's still an appropriate request. This is an example of an off-premise sign -- this happens to be along Immokalee Road -- that provides for the uses that are within Quail Creek, and this was approved. This one is a little closer to the subject property just down the street a little bit for Hacienda Lakes, and also an off-premise sign deviation was approved for this. Going back to our request, we've limited the size to 64 square feet. It's -- on both sides. Sixty-four square feet on one side and the other, so 120 square feet of signage, but they're looking at both sides. It's really a 64-square-foot sign. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I know one of the other commissioners wanted to talk, but I wanted to interrupt for clarification. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go right ahead. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Can you just show on the map where this sign would be and then explain what's actually right there where the sign will be. You know, what is it adjacent to? MR. MULHERE: Let me find the aerial. Sorry. In this -- generally in this -- excuse me. I'm trying to get me there. In this location right -- come on -- right in there. So the Lords Way is -- you can see the Lords Way running east and west, and then the subject -- let me see if this is working. The subject property is right here. The sign would be right there, but it's off premise because it's technically within the right-of-way on the other side of the canal. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right. It's off premise in that it's just slightly over the edge of -- MR. MULHERE: The property line. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So when -- my take in the past when developers like to use other people's land to advertise what they're doing is you have land right there right next to it. You could move the sign, you know -- MR. MULHERE: Well -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- five feet over or whatever. How far is it away from the border? You tell me. MR. MULHERE: Well, actually there's -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: It's a fairly simple thing. Is it 50 feet away from the edge? Is it -- do you want to use that land for something else? 5.A.a Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 24 of 65 MR. TORRES: I just want to clarify something. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Your name, sir. Your name, sir. MR. TORRES: David Torres, for the record. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. TORRES: With the applicant. The request is not to place the sign off site our property. The property [sic] will be on ours -- on our property. MR. MULHERE: Oh. MR. TORRES: The county looks at -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: That's a -- that's -- boom, you've got -- you know, that makes me feel better already. MR. TORRES: Yeah. The county's regulations for off-premises means that I am going to have a name on the sign that is not within the PUD. So, for example, the sign could say Hacienda Lakes, or it could say Sapphire Cove on it, and those are not part of this PUD. So you need the approval to put this off-premises sign in it, so these -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, help me understand that better, because I'm not actually understanding what you're advertising and why it's not. MR. MULHERE: I got it. So -- I apologize. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And, Mr. Chairman, I hope I'm okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You are. MR. MULHERE: I apologize. When I read off premises, I assumed off site. The sign will actually be on this PUD property, but it will include, or may include under what we're asking for, a couple of other developments that are not within this PUD but along Lords Way. So you've got Sapphire Cove right here, and you've got the Florida Sports Park over here, and there will be future development along the Lords Way. And so this -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And exactly where is the sign again? It's right at the corner there? MR. MULHERE: But on the property, yes. And I apologize. I -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: So if it just advertised your own development, it would not require a deviation? MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: But you're -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: The issue here is that they're requesting a directory sign, which, my understanding, has not been requested before in residential property. Normally directional signs go on commercial property. So staff will get into more discussion of what their position is, but this approval of this would reflect a policy change because this type of deviation has not been approved before. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. And, then, if you would explain, then, exactly what is external to this project that would be considered, you know, violative, you know, from what you understand from staff and from your understanding of the rules that apply. MR. MULHERE: Sure, sure. So let's say that the sign contained, in addition to Milano Lakes, contained the word "Sapphire Cove." Sapphire Cove is not within the PUD; therefore, that is an off-premise sign for Sapphire Lakes. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: No, I understand that. I'm just asking you what things besides your -- you know, so you have things that you could say, and that staff, you know, would approve because it's part of the PUD. What additional things -- beyond what would otherwise be allowed, what additional items are going to be on the sign? MR. MULHERE: That's -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Sapphire and the sports park. MR. MULHERE: Anything else? MR. YOVANOVICH: Hacienda Lakes. MR. MULHERE: Hacienda Lakes. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 25 of 65 COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Where is Hacienda Lakes? MR. MULHERE: It's all around it. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. Okay. And so if those three items were not on the sign, then it would be allowed? MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Is that right, staff? MR. BOSI: Correct. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. All right. And so what I'm hearing from the attorney, then, is that, you know, I guess people would be asking for this all the time, and right now the policy is that -- is it, like -- is it regulatory, or is it policy, or is it a regulation that follows that policy? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I'll let staff address the purpose of the policy. MR. MULHERE: So if you look at the example that we have here, that's a good example of what it would look like. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: But if you approve this deviation and it comes again, staff will most likely not object to it. They'll just accept the new change in policy. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Bosi? MR. BOSI: It's -- I mean, the regulation is that, for a residential subdivision that the only allowance for advertising of the subdivisions within that residential subdivision are subdivisions that are contained within the PUD with -- that authorizes the entire residential project. This is something different. This is -- this is being -- or requesting to be able to advertise subdivisions that are not part of this PUD but are associated with the developer of the -- of the residential community who has properties that are in close proximity to this location. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, first of all, Heidi, I don't agree with your assessment that it would be automatically approved as policy, because it's not a policy change. It's particular to this PUD. So I don't understand your statement. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, my understanding from 10 years of reviewing staff reports, that once a deviation is approved, staff does not object to it in the future. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I disagree. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That's what I've seen, but you are correct, it is reviewed on a case-by-case basis. And the whole purpose of the ordinances for our sign code is so we don't look like Lee County, so that there is less clutter on the streets. But, you know, you're the decision makers. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: A major significant emotional event in this county for 25 years. Bob, would you go back to this off-premise sign that you showed for -- what was the other one you showed up there? MR. MULHERE: Right here. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No, not -- the other one you had. MR. MULHERE: That's the only two I had. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No, you showed the Hacienda Lakes -- or not Hacienda, the one further down the street. Yeah, there. MR. MULHERE: Hacienda. I just -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is that within the PUD of Hacienda Lakes? MR. MULHERE: No. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I didn't think so. It's not. Who approved that? Yeah, the point is -- Hacienda Lakes is probably, what, three-quarters or a mile down the road from this? MR. MULHERE: Well, it's -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Because this is on 951 and -- on 951, which is an off-premise sign to show the development of Hacienda Lakes; is that correct? 5.A.a Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 26 of 65 MR. MULHERE: Yeah, it's a project entrance sign, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, it's a project entrance sign. MR. MULHERE: But I did want to point out -- Rich pointed it out to me -- we're not doing commercial advertising through this sign. We're simply making it easier for folks to find certain residential projects that basically are along -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And that was my second point, because this -- though it's being perceived as a directional sign for commercial, it really is not. Hacienda Lakes is a residential development that was approved -- I honestly don't know when that was approved. I probably was not on the commission at that time nor part of staff. But that is definitely an off-premise sign. It was developed and built on 951 to inform the public driving by on 951 that the development of Hacienda Lakes is back off of that road. It's -- Hacienda Lakes is, what, maybe half a mile down the road from where you're putting this. The other point I want to make clear -- and if you would put the site map up again because I want to make sure my colleagues understand -- I know the area well on 951 -- the setback is the road, and you'll see the canal that runs along the eastern side of Collier Boulevard as well, that the canal was probably 20, 25 feet. So that -- this sign will sit off the road considerably. Probably 30 -- MR. MULHERE: It's a 100-foot canal. MR. TORRES: The canal, right, is 100. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We need to have people at the microphone. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So the sign is going to be on the eastern side of the canal. MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So it's pretty well set back from the road. MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Probably at least 40, 50 feet, if I think of the distance. Okay. I just want to point out that this is not a major significant emotional event; that it appears to be -- and I'm not an advocate of it, because I went through this with the county on the sign ordinance and, when I was the administrator, it was a pretty significant event for the sign ordinance. But what you're asking for -- this is, again, my personal opinion -- is not egregious or in any way significantly violating what I would believe to be the off-premise sign or the sign ordinance, but -- so, anyways, that's my piece on this. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Bob, can you go back to the picture of the Quail Creek sign for just a moment. MR. MULHERE: Sure. I wish I had a faster way to do it, but... COMMISSIONER FRY: So this sign advertises four communities. Does this sign violate the sign ordinance? MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: But it was approved by this and the County Commission. MR. MULHERE: Technically it doesn't violate it because it was approved, yes, an exception, deviation. COMMISSIONER FRY: But by the book, it would fall under the same category as the sign you want? MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: So yours would say -- so tell me -- juxtapose for us what your sign might say. Lords Way or the name of -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Lords Way, and then it would list Florida Sports Park, Hacienda Lakes, all the different developments that were accessible on that road? MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Why do you want to advertise -- why don't you just advertise 5.A.a Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 27 of 65 for your own? MR. MULHERE: Well, my client's associated with all of those. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Oh. MR. YOVANOVICH: And it just makes good sense. I mean, if you look at -- for the record, Rich Yovanovich. Quail Creek, if you've been up that road, Quail Creek is like forever down that road before you get there. Then you've got Longshore. Polazzo was a Toll Brothers' project that was not related to that, but it was later added to that sign because it's basically an informational sign for people that are looking for these communities, and there are communities that ultimately they start out with a single developer but, you know, get sold off and developed by others. It's an informational sign that makes it easier for the traveling public to get to these communities, because the Lords Way is a long road. And I think it made sense. It's safer for these people to get to these communities. It's not going to have on there "now selling in" so and so community. It's truly an informational directory sign so people know what's on Lords Way. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. I would say -- so, firstly, you know to our attorney's, you know, suggestion, I agree, you know, with Commissioner Schmitt that, you know, I'm glad that we review this and I think this sort of deviation should be reviewed for this kind of sign, and we should continue to do that; however, you know, then to address the specific point, it seems very clear to me that this actually serves a very helpful public -- you know, it serves the public good because it clears up confusion and technically we -- of course, we're concerned about sign pollution, and I don't see how -- adding these lines to a sign that they can put up anyways to make it clear what's there, I think that serves the common good and, actually, you know, I think it's -- you know, I think we would be hurting -- I don't want to say hurting. But I think we have a chance to do something that's helpful to the community, and I think if we didn't approve it, it would actually make it harder for people to navigate and find where they want to go, et cetera, et cetera. So I actually am very much in favor, you know, at this point of the sign. And I want to point out that my starting point, obviously, was very negative, you know, based on some assumptions I had made and, as always, as Mr. Yovanovich knows, you know, if you explain it to me and you have a rational, you know, explanation, then I'm happy, you know, to entertain it. In this case it was -- you know, it immediately assuaged my concern. So I think this is a good thing. MR. MULHERE: Unfortunately, that was my fault. I misled you because I did not fully understand the deviation -- the sign was actually going to be on our property. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Well, people involved in development often mislead people, so that's okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Just for the record, I remember when this sign was approved, Quail Creek, and it was specifically for the reasons. Again, it's a long, what I would call, a rarely -- a fairly busy thoroughfare, Immokalee Road. The canal is right there, and it does advertise or notify the public, I would use a better word, of those other communities, none of which were related to Quail Creek, but they were all put on there just so that folks on Immokalee -- coming down Immokalee would know those other developments were there. And, again, I remember that there was a specific reason for this sign to be -- when it was approved. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: I live a quarter mile from that sign, and I have to admit I've never actually read it. I will -- for myself, I look forward to hearing from other staff in terms of how a sign like that would make us more like Lee County. I mean, I'm going to withhold judgment till I understand the full background of why that kind of sign isn't allowed. So I just look forward to hearing that explanation to see if that changes the rationale at all. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 28 of 65 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Before you continue, Mr. Mulhere, my question is -- and I could go back and read the language myself, but we're running on the fly here. Looking at this Quail Creek sign, is what you're proposing -- are the specifications in the proposal going to create almost exactly this kind of a sign? MR. MULHERE: Pretty similar. I don't know what the square footage of that is, but we limited ourselves to 64 square feet measured -- you know, measured basically there. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. Size is one thing, for sure, but right now I'm focusing on aesthetics. I find that sign that be aesthetically not displeasing. MR. MULHERE: Well, I'm sure it will be aesthetically pleasing. I don't think it's been designed yet, but I can tell you that my client would want to do something very nice since he's the one that's marketing the developments. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And I think directory signs allow up to eight to be listed; is that correct, Mike? MR. BOSI: I'd have to check the code. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. There's no -- you don't have a picture in here, so it's just going to be whatever the deviation allows as well as what our code allows. MR. YOVANOVICH: If you would like us to attach something like this as "it will be similar to this type of sign," not exactly to but similar to this type of sign, we would be happy to do that. I don't think we're ready to tell you how many different neighborhoods would be listed on this. But if you want this to be a guide to how the sign will ultimately be reviewed and approved so you're comfortable with the aesthetics, we're okay with that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We'll hear what staff has to say. But I'm amenable to considering that. Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yeah. I would say that -- you know, I don't know what, you know -- maybe you don't have the information available, but I think it would be unreasonable to ask us to approve a deviation of this sort without having, you know -- understanding, you know, exactly what was going to be advertised, because if we just say, oh, sure you can do that, then, you know, it seems as though you could put whatever you want on the sign, and I certainly wouldn't approve that. I -- you know, and I don't think it's a directional sign either. It's not a commercial -- in my view, it's not a commercial directional sign. It's a sign that you would be putting on your property that all of these, you know, communities have. I don't know what -- maybe it is considered a directional sign. It's a sign that marks, hey, this is the entrance to this community in case you were looking for it. Obviously, in case -- let me finish -- in case -- or in case you're looking to buy, you know, a house here and want to come look, you know, at new homes and the options, and adding these other communities, I do think, serves the public good, but I think you should be required, if you're going to ask us to allow that -- I don't think it's -- you know, I mean, maybe you have some reason why you can't tell us, but I don't understand why you wouldn't just tell us exactly what you're going to be advertising now so that we can approve -- we know what we're approving. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let me say -- let me, if I may. Thank you. I think this is a great time -- I've gone four minutes over for our mid-morning break, and there's food for thought out there. There seems to be a developing consensus about aesthetics. This would give you an opportunity to, perhaps, get your heads together and consider what you would be able to do and come back in, let's say -- 10:45, 11 minutes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We're in recess till 10:45. Thank you. (A brief recess was had from 10:33 a.m. to 10:45 a.m.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ladies and gentlemen, let's reconvene, please. It's 10:45. May I ask -- thank you very much. When last we were together, a proposal was put forth and there was an opportunity for the applicant to have a conversation and perhaps come back with 5.A.a Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 29 of 65 something that might help garner support on the dais. Mr. Mulhere? MR. MULHERE: And we spoke -- I'm sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And we spoke with staff as well. Staff would like us to strike through -- if you look at 3B, strike through the reference to 128 square feet and the parenthetical 64 square feet on each side. The way the county looks at it, they're going to measure the square footage on one side. So we are happy with saying -- in responding to staff's request, to strike through the 128 square feet and the parenthetical phrase and just leaving a maximum sign face area of 64 square feet on each side. CHAIRMAN FRYER: May I take that a step further, then, sensing, well, from comments made here, if you could also add some language that Mr. Yovanovich was offering regarding substantially similar from an aesthetics standpoint. MR. MULHERE: I was going to get to that. That was just one -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Can I just ask for clarification as to what this actually means. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go right ahead. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. So 64 feet each side and meaning there's two sides to the road and -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah, so you can see both ways. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Right, okay. MR. MULHERE: Yep. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Mulhere. MR. MULHERE: And then on 3D, we will add language that says the sign shall be consistent with the attached, and we'll attach this exhibit, substantially consistent with that, similar. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. MULHERE: And we'll work with staff to get the exact language, but we'll add that as an exhibit so that will be in there, referenced. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And just so that we don't have to wait around in suspense, would staff indicate that that would resolve the denial point? MR. BOSI: Staff would -- staff would be able to support the request with the revisions and the clarification from the Planning Commission that the justification of the deviation, similar to the Quail Creek off-premise sign location, is a six-lane divided highway with high speeds of travel for the motorists in combination with a long access road that provides the -- provides the access to the project being proposed as well as additional residential subdivisions outside of the applicant. If those conditions are met, we can approve a future one, but we don't want to think this is precedent in all instances. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I think that's a point well taken, and you've stated it well. When the time comes for a motion, will you be able to state it again so that we can include it in our motion? MR. MULHERE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. MR. MULHERE: Mr. Chairman, I do want to add one other phrase that -- to respond to Mr. Klucik's comment. At the end of 3D, we'll put a comma and add "not to exceed five communities." Okay. And that was what Mr. Klucik wanted to see? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Yes. And I will say that, you know -- I don't know if this wasn't up or I just didn't notice it, but you clearly did try to, you know, clarify what you were thinking of. But having it open ended -- yeah, I'm glad that you're limiting it, and I realize that you don't know what the names are going to be of, you know -- MR. MULHERE: Some we do. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 30 of 65 COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: -- of something. It might change. So I appreciate that. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anything else, Mr. Mulhere? MR. MULHERE: No, we can move on. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So the applicant has nothing further to present? MR. MULHERE: Just a couple of -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. MULHERE: -- quick -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. MR. MULHERE: Obviously, this is the master plan. I'm sure you've seen that. The sign location is right there (indicating). And this is a comparison of the currently approved PUD and the proposed PUD amendment in terms of trips, and you can see that the proposed change, although it increases the residential density, results in a net decrease of traffic. And these -- this is the staff recommendation. I already went over that. And certainly they can. And just to remind you, you did forward this at transmittal as well as the Board of County Commissioners supporting it at transmittal. That concludes our presentation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Bob, I have a few questions for you. A quickie on the signs. Would Florida Sports Park be one of the -- you said five developments, but is Florida Sports Park -- MR. MULHERE: No. COMMISSIONER FRY: It would not be mentioned. Is there a county sign for the Florida Sports Park, like a green sign that says Florida Sports Park left or -- is that the access for that? MR. MULHERE: I don't believe there is. I haven't seen one. I was just up there. COMMISSIONER FRY: You just have to know how to get to the Florida Sports Park here? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, the county may put some signs in. MR. BOSI: I do believe there is some -- a signage that indicates the general location of the -- of the Florida Sports Park. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. All right. I don't mean to dwell on that. I was just curious. Bob, you've left assisted living, skilled nursing, you left those things in. Why is that? Obviously, the intent here is a multifamily rental -- MR. MULHERE: It is -- COMMISSIONER FRY: -- community. MR. MULHERE: -- but moving forward, just flexibility. There's still demand for assisted living as well. Obviously, if things go the way we think they'll go, it will be a multifamily project, but we want to have flexibility, you know. COMMISSIONER FRY: But you would still -- even if you pursued those pathways, you would still abide by the traffic counts? MR. MULHERE: Yes, it's controlled. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: Still within the traffic count limitations within your -- MR. MULHERE: There's a p.m. peak-hour traffic cap, yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: If I can just interrupt for a moment -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Sure. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- on your point, Commissioner. Is that why -- the ALF piece, is 5.A.a Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 31 of 65 that why this is still an MPUDA rather than an RPUDA? MR. MULHERE: Well, it also has the tower, which is a nonresidential use. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, oh, oh, okay. Thank you. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRY: So there's a Tract A and a Tract A1, which is across the FP&L easement. Do we consider A and A1 synonymous in all references to Tract A, meaning that all these additional units will be built across Tracts A and A1? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRY: And at whatever percentages that you deem fit, correct? MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. I noticed in the list of recreational uses that pickleball courts are not listed. It's a very common use now. Is that covered by what you have listed, or is there a need to add that in as a recreational use? MR. MULHERE: We'll add it. COMMISSIONER FRY: Because it seems like that would not necessarily fall under any of the other definitions. I guess a -- so overall, about 20 percent of the overall units will be affordable housing, so -- MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- it doesn't have to be you, but I think I do want to see from staff, I'd like to see actual numbers, median incomes, what kind of income ranges these are actually going to apply to and how many. Is that something that you have? MR. MULHERE: I do. COMMISSIONER FRY: You do. If you could show that, I sure would appreciate it. MR. MULHERE: I don't know if I have it in a format that I can show you right on here. I guess I could go back to it, but I can just list them for you, if that's acceptable. COMMISSIONER FRY: Sure. MR. MULHERE: So there are -- of the 296 existing, 147 are reserved first for essential services, of which 35 are restricted to essential service personnel earning 100 percent or below of the average median income, and 25 are restricted to essential service personnel earning 80 percent or below, so that's 60 units that are income restricted. COMMISSIONER FRY: But only for essential service personnel that fall into those categories, correct? CHAIRMAN FRYER: But that's only for a certain number of days. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thirty days. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's the existing. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, that the existing. COMMISSIONER FRY: That does not change in any way, shape, or form with this. Okay. Now -- MR. MULHERE: Now, moving forward, the number is 76 either rental or fee simple. There's the option: 76 units, which is 20 percent of the proposed 384, and those are restricted to between 120 and 80 percent of the average median income. COMMISSIONER FRY: All of them? MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: All 76? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRY: And what are we talking about in terms of the dollar amounts? And that can be deferred to staff if necessary. And the reason I bring this up is I feel affordable housing needs to serve more than just essential services personnel, and I -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It's not restricted to that. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, we didn't restrict it to that. COMMISSIONER FRY: Those are not restricted in any way. But I just wanted to see the dollar amounts, because I think -- I would just observe that not only -- businesses like my own, 5.A.a Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 32 of 65 we hire people that are skilled but they're not 2-, 300,000-a-year people. They're people that make 50- to $80,000, 40- to $80,000, and my experience is that people in that income range are not able to find housing in Naples effectively, and they live in Estero/Fort Myers/Cape Coral. They suffer, and the businesses that employee them, like my own, suffer incredible commute times because 75 is a parking lot in the morning coming south, and it's a parking lot after 3:00 in the afternoon going north. That's a state issue, I understand, of which I don't know a solution, but it would sure be nice if our affordable housing plan supported -- the people that serve our businesses that serve the people that live here would help them live in the Naples area. MR. YOVANOVICH: And in response to that, it was intentional that we didn't limit to ESP, essential service personnel. And the income categories that we were guided to also address significant issues for teachers, other -- but I'm just saying, those are the normal laundry list, sheriff's deputies, nurses. They make in that 80 to 120 percent income category for salaries, especially if there's two in the home. COMMISSIONER FRY: In a two-breadwinner home. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And even just a starting teacher automatically is above 80 percent. So when we were -- remember, there was a lot of push for 80 percent and below income restriction, and we were actually not serving a significant portion of the workforce that we were trying to keep here. So that's why the 80 to 120 category was picked. And I think it's roughly 85,000 is the median income for a family of four. I am sure Jake will correct me if I'm a couple thousand dollars off. CHAIRMAN FRYER: There's an excellent slide in the Affordable Housing 101 presentation -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- coming up that -- yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: So am I close on the 85 percent -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, you are. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- 85,000, yeah. COMMISSIONER FRY: But 85,000, 120 percent is $102,000. MR. YOVANOVICH: And if you do -- and 80 percent of that is, what, 60-something, 67,000. COMMISSIONER FRY: Sixty-seven. So 67- to 102,000. So you don't have anything that -- in the new units, there's nothing below 80 percent, so nothing that really supports the under-67,000 segment, correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Not in this project, but there are other projects. You know, the project -- in the project itself, even though it's -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Tract G. MR. YOVANOVICH: Tract G does serves 80 percent or less. COMMISSIONER FRY: Does serve -- 25 units are 80 percent or less. Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. So there's a nice blend within this one specific PUD. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. MR. MULHERE: I did want to mention -- I forgot to mention and wanted to that we worked with our neighbors, the owners of Milano, the apartment complex. They had a few concerns. We removed a deviation related to a landscape buffer basically along here. That's not working. But between the two parcels, we removed that deviation, and they had a concern about a certain setback, and that's reflected in the development standards, so we believe we've satisfied those concerns. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. We're also glad to hear that concerns of neighbors are being addressed, so thank you for that. Any other planning commissioners wish to be heard? No one is signaling at this point. Mr. Mulhere, anything further, sir? MR. MULHERE: No, sir. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 33 of 65 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you very much. Next, we'll hear from staff. MR. BOSI: Thank you, Chair. Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. The one area that we were not in support has been addressed by the modifications and the further conditions that have been expressed by the Planning Commission. And we can -- as indicated, staff can support that individual additional deviation. I just wanted to point out, when it came to you originally, there was a 10 percent reservation for the new units to be affordable. Through conversations with the Board of County Commissioners, they were -- they were informed that they needed to increase that amount. They came back with the 20 percent, and staff has -- is in agreement with the additional 10 percent with the income restriction. Based upon that and all of the conditions that have been imposed within the PUD and the text that's contained within the individual staff report, staff is supporting the GMP amendment as well as the MPUD proposal. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: So -- okay. Because you -- and the staff recommendation says you do not support the GMP amendment. You're saying that you've changed your position on that? MR. BOSI: That staff recommendation that you're reading from was the transmittal staff report. The supplemental staff report has silenced that, but with the increase from 10 percent affordable units to 20 percent affordable units, staff can support the proposed GMP amendment. COMMISSIONER FRY: Got it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anything else from staff? MR. BOSI: Nothing from staff, but other than the clarification, when you're making your motion, I will provide further clarification as to why the Planning Commission was supporting the deviation. MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, I have one clarification. James Sabo, Comprehensive Planning manager for the county. The ordinance you are considering is the adoption ordinance. It was advertised as adoption, and the ordinance claims adoption. The confusion in the language sometimes is it's a transmittal of the adoption, and we transmit the transmittal, so sometimes it's just word stumbling. That's it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think we've completely fixed that potential problem. Let's see. Anything else from staff? MR. BOSI: I think that completes staff's review. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Mr. Youngblood, do we have any public speakers? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, I have three public speakers present with us. Our first one is going to be John Harrison, followed by Veronica Apoldo. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Harrison? MR. HARRISON: Good morning, members of the Planning Commission, and thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak. Let me also first thank you for your service to the community. I'm having a much greater appreciation of what it is that you do for us. My name is John Harrison. I'm vice president of the board of directors of Naples Lakes Country Club. The front entrance of our club is directly across the street from Lords Way where it is proposed, as you know, to increase the number of units from 306 to 690. The members of Naples Lakes have concerns, although I want to stress here not objections to what is being proposed. First let me tell you about Naples Lakes. Our community extends from Collier Boulevard to Rattlesnake Hammock and is nestled behind Naples Lake Village Center, which includes Publix. Our community is comprised of 731 households. We're proud to have one of the very few Arnold Palmer signature golf courses. We have a beautiful clubhouse, and we are in the final stages of 5.A.a Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 34 of 65 construction of an outdoor dining facility and activity center next to our golf course -- tennis courts. When asked the common question, "how are you?" typical greeting in the morning, the typical, if not almost universal, response at Naples Lakes is "living the dream," and mostly every Naples Lakes resident truly believes that we are living the dream not only at Naples Lakes but also in Collier County. We are undoubtedly living in one of the, if not the best parts of the country; however, our little secret is no longer a secret, and we are now seeing development everywhere at an unprecedented rate. Naples Lakes was developed by Toll Brothers and has been in existence for 20 years. Over those years, there's been much development outside of our front and back entrances. Going out our back gate on Rattlesnake Hammock, we find Racetrac gas and service station, a Clean Machine car wash, an Extra Space storage facility, in addition to Sierra Grand apartments with hundreds of units. Out our front gate on Collier Boulevard, we find Hacienda Lakes, EMS Station No. 25, Sapphire Cove, and Milano Lakes, and now additional developments. Now under consideration is increasing the number of units by 384. In addition, we just received notice about another community to be developed in that same area. The question for the Commission, which is, what is too much, and when might we lose the dream that we had when we moved to our community? I don't have the question -- answer to that question. We leave it up to you good people to decide for the community at what point we do overdevelopment. When Naples Lakes was developed 20 years ago, Collier Boulevard had a two-lane highway. It is now six lanes with constant traffic with the sound of trucks and speeding cars along with the occasional sirens of ambulances, fire engines, and police vehicles. It's not uncommon to find ourselves waiting for several minutes to even leave Naples Lakes out the front entrance. If we are going to Marco Island, it's a straight away. If we want to go north on Collier Boulevard, we must quickly cross the three-lane highway, move to the turn, and then wait until we can turn going north on Collier Boulevard. Now, in order to do this, we wait for the lull in traffic, but now what we're finding with the units coming in across the street, they're doing the same thing. They have -- there's no light. They have to cross three lanes of traffic, then they're turning on Collier Boulevard waiting for a lull in traffic which is the same lull in traffic that we're waiting for in order to get out of Naples Lakes. So now what we're doing is creating a circular motion without any streetlights out in front of our two communities. Now, we believe that this is a problem which is a disaster waiting to happen. We think people crossing three lanes of traffic trying to get into another three lanes of traffic coming in the other direction is going to create an accident or, heaven forbid, a fatality in the future. Now, I heard earlier that with the addition of more units coming onto Collier Boulevard, that there's going to be less traffic. I find it difficult to follow that. Nevertheless, we do believe that the additional units will be bringing in additional cars competing for the traffic as I described on Collier Boulevard. So we're not objecting to the project but, quite frankly, what we're doing is asking that the Planning Commission consider looking at the traffic very, very carefully, looking at how do those people moving into these new communities -- how are they going to get onto Collier Boulevard? How are they going to get to Marco Island? How are we going to get out of our community? How are we going to be able to go north on Collier Boulevard without creating dangers for the new residents across the street and for the residents at Naples Lakes? So thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Just a point of clarification, sir. We do consider the impacts of traffic as well as issues of overdevelopment. We spend a lot of time on those, and we are always attempting to be faithful to the interests of the residents in the nearby areas. Just to clarify, when an applicant would say it's going to be a reduction in traffic, what 5.A.a Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 35 of 65 they're talking about is a reduction in entitled traffic. Right now they're at, like, 550 or 500 and some change peak p.m. trips per hour, and they're proposing to reduce that to around 330. So based upon what they could do versus what they're proposing to do, there would be a favorable change. But that's -- I mean, it's -- it's not in relation to the current situation. It's related to currently entitled. MR. HARRISON: No. I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: I would like just to add to what Chairman Fryer said, you know, we are -- we're volunteers, right? We live in neighborhoods like yourself. I think we're all sensitive to the traffic as well. Every time I get on 75, which I mentioned earlier, or Immokalee Road, which I live near, I'm like, how do we -- how do we control this trend? How do we keep this, the place where we live, the dream? Up here our challenge is to balance kind of what's best for the county that is growing, whether we -- you know, whether we want more traffic or not, there are people that are flooding here, and where are you going to put them? So we're trying to put the density in areas where it's best to have it and preserve the areas where we want to preserve, you know, the natural areas. But I think you're -- we have to balance that with property rights. So you have an applicant. They have the right to build these non- -- mostly nonresidential church and assisted living that would generate more traffic. But there's no question, you're going to get -- there's going to be more traffic on 951 from these new units than there is today. And so I think your -- your question is valid. And, you know, Attorney Klatzkow mentioned earlier that we continue to approve additional density. It's a tough balancing act. And, you know, I don't -- I don't pretend to know the answer as a volunteer up here, not a planner. I think the caveat here -- one of the caveats here is that I've been on this board now for almost four years, and at the beginning, or the first three years, affordable housing was an afterthought. It was an 11th hour try to negotiate during this session to add a few affordable housing units in. And that's a humongous need that we have, and now you've got developments -- the good news is you have developments that are coming in with a reasonable percentage of affordable housing built -- baked into the mix, which is a positive. So I think -- you know, if they built what they have the right to build now, you'd get even more traffic than if they build what they're proposing, and that's always a tough thing for us to counter and vote no. I'd like to see no more cars on 951 or any of the streets that we deal with. I'm with you there. So I don't have the answer. I wish we had more creative solutions. MR. HARRISON: Once again, I appreciate very much what the Board does. I know that you get paid as much as I do, and I'm sure that you're getting more aggravation than I do being on the Board. But I would get a lot of aggravation if I didn't come here and say a few words -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well -- MR. HARRISON: -- which is what I did. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- we're very glad that you did, sir. Thank you so much. MR. HARRISON: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And as our -- let's announce our next speaker, and then I've got a quick question for staff as that speaker comes up. MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman, I had one speaker rescind or withdraw their time, so we only have one registered speaker remaining, Veronica Apoldo. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Thank you. While she's coming up, could I have the proximate distance between this project and the activity center on Rattlesnake Hammock? Just approximate. MR. TORRES: Quarter mile, I think. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Does the applicant know? MR. TORRES: It's about a quarter mile. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 36 of 65 MR. MULHERE: Quarter mile. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Quarter mile? MR. MULHERE: About. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Does that sound right to staff? MR. BOSI: To the center of the activity center, about a little over of a quarter mile. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you very much. Ma'am, please state your name, and then you have the floor. MS. APOLDO: Hi. My name is Veronica Apoldo, and thank you for giving me your time today. I basically just wanted to follow up with what the last gentleman was saying about the traffic. I take my kids to school in the morning at 7:00, and I make a right turn onto Collier Boulevard to have to take a left turn to go to Lely High School, and it takes me about 20 minutes in doing that. So I hope that you consider what the gentleman was saying in that the traffic is a problem now, and it's probably going to get worse later. And hopefully maybe the resolution there could be a traffic light. I'm not sure. But why I basically came here today is I have heard so much about the affordable housing going up in the area. And my general question, and I think with some of my other -- the residents who live at Sapphire Cove is we seem to be in the center of a rental explosion. There seems to be five new rental properties that are going up around us. And I would just like to know, why is the focus within Hacienda Lakes and not other areas within Naples? I just sat through a presentation where they were talking about putting up new housing in a development that is not going to have any affordable housing in it, and I'm just concerned as to why -- why it's being centrally located to Hacienda Lakes and why our development where the properties range from 600,000 to over a million dollars, why we are kind of sandwiched in between all these new rental communities that are coming up. From what I understand, on Rattlesnake Hammock alone, there are two assisted living centers going up for senior residents, there is Hammock Park apartments, there's another apartment community going behind Hammock Park with yet another apartment community going behind that one, which is going to be adjacent to Rattlesnake Hammock and Carmen Drive. Then you have Sapphire Cove. Across the street from Sapphire Cove you have Milano Lakes. And now in front of Milano Lakes you will have additional rental communities of 690 units. So I understand that there's a need for affordable housing. I totally support affordable housing, but my question is, why does it have to be all centrally located where we live? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Klucik. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I'm just trying to figure out, I mean, there's only -- you know, there's limited land that's still open for development. And these -- you know, these -- obviously these things have come up, and the owners have asked, you know, in the process, and so I don't know, like, should we -- because it's near homes that are more expensive, we should -- you know, I mean, do you think we should be saying no, you know, we don't -- MS. APOLDO: No. I'm trying to understand, because I also understand that there's this great big explosion of rental increases. So you're going to make affordable housing affordable for those who work here and then not so affordable for those who come here. But what happens 10 years from now when maybe people aren't coming here anymore? Maybe people don't want to rent. Maybe people want to buy, you know, and the option of condos and houses were put on the table but, yet, that's not happening, and everyone's going the rental option. And I'm just -- I'm just trying to understand that as, you know, a regular layperson who goes to work every day, why wouldn't we be giving people more option of owning as opposed to renting? CHAIRMAN FRYER: We have the privilege of a presentation coming up as our last agenda item today from a Mr. LaRow who is new in the job that encompasses affordable housing in Collier County, and he's got a PowerPoint, a slide show to show us, and it really clearly illustrates where the demand is. And there's demand up and down the line, including in the low 5.A.a Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 37 of 65 and very low areas, which is where you would see predominantly affordable housing. And I would invite you -- if you have time, if you have the availability, to stay around and hear that presentation. If not, it's going to be on the TV archives, and it can answer that question. You're asking very good questions. And I think what he's going to tell us will go a long way toward answering. It may not be the answer you want to hear, but you will -- MS. APOLDO: I understand. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It will clarify what the policy of the county is and what the needs of the county are and how we're attempting to address them. MS. APOLDO: Right. But it's just concerning for us as new residents, and some of us haven't even moved into Sapphire Cove yet, that the landscaping has completely changed from what we were being told upon signing our contracts to what is actually -- what is actually occurring today. And, you know, the presentation just before us when we were talking about the -- I'm sorry, was it Palisades Park? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. MS. APOLDO: Why aren't they building rental homes there? Why is that going to be housing? Why aren't they getting rental -- why aren't they getting a rental community? MR. KLATZKOW: Because the applicant is asking for a certain product, and right now that product that they're asking for might be rental units. People are not building condominiums in Collier County, and I know that people are not building condominiums in Fort Lauderdale right now. It's just not the right market. MS. APOLDO: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: Will those convert to condominium units? I've been around long enough to say, yes, eventually some of those are going to be converted to condominium units because that's what happens as the markets change. But he has an application. They're reviewing the application. And they can't tell him, well, instead of coming with apartments, we want condos. It's just -- that's just not the process. MS. APOLDO: Right. I don't know where you live in Naples, sir, but are you around -- MR. KLATZKOW: I've been -- MS. APOLDO: -- apartments -- MR. KLATZKOW: I've been -- MS. APOLDO: -- around condominiums, or do you live in a gated community where you don't -- you're not subjected to any of it? MR. KLATZKOW: I've been here 20 years when Collier Boulevard was two lanes and, from my standpoint, the new folks, you know, are the ones who are causing all of the traffic. MS. APOLDO: I totally agree with you. That would be me included. MR. KLATZKOW: And, oh, by the way, I used to live off of Immokalee and Collier Boulevard. I took the two-lane Collier Boulevard to the two-lane VBR, and I worked [sic] myself to work. It took me 20 minutes. And when they six-laned everything, it took me 45 minutes because traffic by then had gone up. So, you know, it's all relative to what you've got here. MS. APOLDO: Yes. And I've also been a victim to the 75 commute, because my daughter does cheerleading up in Fort Myers, so we are subjected to that. MR. KLATZKOW: And when I moved here, I-75, there was nobody on it so, you know, it's just -- MS. APOLDO: Well, I just -- I just wanted for the record to note that there are just some questions and concerns that, you know, we as, you know, community members would like to understand better. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. There's some Planning Commissioners who have some questions or comments. And we'll call first on Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just to answer your question, from a planning perspective, we have no part or decision in the process of what product is built. The developer -- we can't tell a developer to build a fee-simple unit versus a condominium versus a 5.A.a Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 38 of 65 rental. MS. APOLDO: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Now, certainly, it's part of the application process when they're going to come in with a multifamily, and we do ask questions in regards to what the product will be, because we're looking at trying to apply some of the principles that the Board has directed the staff and we look at as well for affordable housing, for essential services personnel and otherwise. But zoning does not tell a developer what kind of product to build. It's density and intensity, whether it's residential or commercial. It is not what type of product, meaning fee simple, which is single-family or a joint home, condominium, or rental. That is not part of the zoning application process. So, yes, a developer -- you're probably seeing developers come in for rental because the market is there. As you certainly understand, land is very expensive in Collier County. In reality, along Collier Boulevard what we used to refer to years ago as the rural fringe is the last area to be developed. That's where the land is available. And it appears that the product that's -- I'd have to say they built it because there's a profit involved, certainly, but they build a product that the market is demanding, and right now it seems to be rentals. I believe right across the street here from the courthouse -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Courthouse Shadows. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- that was once the shopping center. I believe those are all rentals, are they not? I'm not sure. But that was -- the market seems to be there for rentals, and that's what the -- that's what the development community is providing. MS. APOLDO: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I don't know if that's an explanation, but that seems to be -- it's a supply-and-demand issue, and it's providing a product. And it is interesting, because younger people are -- though I think it's important from building wealth and other types of things for young folks to buy a home if they can afford it, it seems that it's less desirable now. Mobility and people would prefer to rent. It's an interesting dynamic. MS. APOLDO: Well, I agree, but I also agree with the fact that more people are working from home now. So why wouldn't they want the opportunity to be able to buy their own house? And, like, the starter home I don't think exists in Collier County. And, you know, maybe this is a great opportunity now to make some of the land around us that opportunity, townhomes. Again, I'm not a developer. I'm just a citizen, but I just wanted to ask the questions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. And you've raised good ones. May I -- I was multitasking when you gave your name, and I didn't get it. What's your last name, please? MS. APOLDO: Apoldo. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Spell. MS. APOLDO: A-p-o-l-d-o. CHAIRMAN FRYER: A-p-o-l-d-o? MS. APOLDO: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you so much. Thank you for your comments. MS. APOLDO: Have a great day. Thank you, guys. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Anyone else, Mr. Youngblood? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any people in the room who have not registered to speak but would like to be heard on this matter, please raise your hand. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Seeing none, we will close the public comment segment of this hearing and ask if there -- is there a rebuttal? MR. YOVANOVICH: Just a couple brief comments, just informational for the last speaker. There is anticipated to be a traffic signal at Naples Lakes and Lords Way, and we are 5.A.a Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 39 of 65 obligated to pay our fair share. So when and if warrants are met, there may be a traffic signal there. And there have been some improvements. If you look on the visualizer -- and I'm going to kind of point -- oh, it's not on. If you go back to where I was, I'm sorry. Go back to where it was, I'm sorry. Where it says Sapphire Cove, to the east of that there's actually already a paved road now, so you can take Lords Way to a paved road that will get you to Rattlesnake, which is a signalized intersection so you don't have to go down Lords Way, take a right, and do a U-turn. If you wanted to get to a traffic signal now. So there are some traffic improvements that have been made, and there will be potentially a future traffic signal. And just to put the last speaker's mind at ease regarding rental communities, you-all have many rental communities throughout Collier County. There's not been a focus just in Hacienda Lakes. I mean, you have Allura, you have the Courthouse Shadows across the street, you had the project on Goodlette. You have throughout -- you know, Lago where Briarwood was, there's been several apartment complexes that have come through. You had Randall Curve recently. You have the project Founders Square up on Immokalee and Collier Boulevard. So it is -- it is a demand that is not limited to just new people coming here who are working people. There are people who are actually -- have decided they have a home. They no longer want to have a home, so they sell the home, and they would prefer to live in an upscale nice amenitized apartment complex with those facilities. So that is -- it is a very important housing niche in Collier County for not just young people coming here to work but for people who have decided they no longer need -- they don't want to own. They'd rather have someone else totally responsible for that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Rich, I believe I read in the packet that initially the commitment was that these would be not rental units but be purchased units, correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: And then the affordable housing 20 percent commitment came in. COMMISSIONER FRY: And that's -- MR. YOVANOVICH: And that's -- you cannot build a for-sale product at the price points to sell it based upon construction costs, land costs. You just can't deliver a for-sale product in those income-restricted categories with a 30-year commitment. COMMISSIONER FRY: So the introduction of affordable housing by itself demands the transition from purchased units to rental units? MR. YOVANOVICH: It definitely led us -- yes. I mean, it cannot -- you can't do it. You can't do it, not at a 20 percent commitment of the number of units, so it's just pure economics. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Just for our friends at Naples Lakes -- and I'm not sure how long you've lived at Naples Lakes, but the development at Lords Way has gone through a pretty tumultuous history. It's been very, shall I say, agonizing, even over the years. Pastor Mallory had a vision, went in there, basically went bankrupt. The place was total disarray. In fact, I don't know if you recall when they had the steel sitting out in front of there that they were going to expand that existing church. It was going to be nothing more than the threshold leading to a much larger church. That all was abandoned, and it truly has been, I would say, an eyesore along 951. We have a developer coming in here, and it really, with this proposal, is going to end up cleaning up the site. Yes, it does add more traffic. But what was actually proposed there many years ago would have been pretty significant as well. And the folks at Naples Lake -- I know Naples, because when I got here I looked at purchasing in there, so I know the area. But it was -- Bob didn't get into the history of it, and I certainly know the history of this whole development. And, frankly, what's being proposed is -- from a standpoint of developing is going to -- I would expect this developer, knowing this developer's history, will certainly improve the area, which exists now is -- I believe is just unsightly, except for the one building that's sitting there. So that's kind of my opinion. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 40 of 65 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Mr. Yovanovich? MR. YOVANOVICH: That was it. We just hope you can -- you know, obviously, we've been through -- this is the second round on the Comp Plan amendment and, frankly, we went through in detail on the PUD as well during transmittal. But staff's recommending approval. It is a net reduction in traffic. It is completing a project that Commissioner Schmitt is correct has been unfinished for many, many years and eliminating uses that I don't think the community would like to see happen on that property should this somehow be denied. And with that, we're available to answer any further questions you may have, and we would hope the Planning Commission could make a recommendation of approval on both, including Mr. Bosi's language that I know, should you make that motion, he can help supplement the terms of the motion. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Vice Chair. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Do you have any idea of when the light signalization would be warranted? MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: At what point in the development? MR. YOVANOVICH: Do we have an idea, ballpark, when we think the warrants will be -- Norm? No, we don't know exactly when. When it meets warrants, we pay our fair share. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: My question was the same one. I was going to ask Mike back there what the county's thoughts are on that, because it does strike me as those types of U-turns, as you got into those heavy trafficked areas, is highly dangerous. So it seemed, from everything everybody said and my driving it, that a light might be a good idea. I'm just wondering what our criteria is when we decide to do that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anything further from -- oh, Mr. Sawyer? MR. SAWYER: For the record, Mike Sawyer, Transportation Planning. There's 12 criteria that we go through in the evaluation for any signal. You don't need to meet all of them, certainly, but you need to meet most of them or at least from a safety standpoint, those safety elements in that criteria certainly are looked at more. We look at crash data. We look at a range of different criteria. Certainly this has been considered for a signal for some time. We know that at some point there probably will be one there. We don't know when that is yet. It will be studied. That's why there's a commitment to pay fair share with this particular PUD. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Just -- Mike, for clarification so folks understand, once it's warranted and then you go through the actual permitting and construction, it's typically -- it could be up to two years away before a light is constructed. We're crossing six lanes here. This is probably going to be up in excess of a million dollars or more for any type of signal at that location. MR. SAWYER: I would agree, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. So that's -- so folks understand what's behind this. I mean, it's -- first it's the warrant, then the design and review process, and then the construction and, of course, looking for the funding. MR. SAWYER: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm well aware of it because of the signal going on 41 at Fiddler's Creek exit, the Sandpiper exit. It started over four years ago. The warrant was finally approved. It will probably be two more years before the light is constructed. MR. SAWYER: And that's with the state, yes. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 41 of 65 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, that's with the state. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. No one else is signaling at this point, so I believe it would be appropriate for us to deliberate and entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just for the record, again, I'm well aware of the history of the Lords Way and very, very controversial when it was first proposed, some of the uses. I won't get into the uses, but it was very controversial because of even the drug rehabilitation and others that -- we won't discuss the need, but that was very, very controversial. The project did go bankrupt. It's been sitting dormant for years. And I will state for the record that this is our adoption hearing. The Board did direct and, I see, made definite improvements. The applicant came back and obliged and obligated and committed to those commitments that the Board directed, so I'm inclined to support the proposal. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Would you put that in the form of a motion, and if so, could we ask Mr. Bosi to state it. And before he does that -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll put that in a motion. Are we motioning on each or combined? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Combined. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I will put on the motion, then -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: May I try to -- I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to give the general outline, then I'm going to ask Mr. Bosi to put some flesh on the bones, and then I'll turn to you, Commissioner, and ask for a motion. I believe the points are, number one, the size-of-signs point that Mr. Klucik raised, the substantially similar aesthetically point that I raised, and then the unique circumstances that Mr. Bosi wanted to articulate. Are there any other general topics? Now I'm going to ask Mr. Bosi -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Number of communities listed on it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Number of communities listed on it, correct. Can you -- can you give us the language of a motion for Commissioner Schmitt? MR. BOSI: And I'm -- what I was trying to do is provide the clarification as to why the deviation was being supported by the Planning Commission, and that doesn't need to be within your motion. That needs -- I mean, that's stated within the minutes of the record. Are you asking for a revised motion related to the deviation that's being supported by staff? I'm somewhat confused by what you're looking for. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll put on the record I believe the justification for the deviation -- I know staff recommended denial based on the code, but the deviation in this case seems to be justified for three reasons: One is the distance. The location of the sign on what is considered a high-speed thoroughfare. It's a six-lane divided highway. MR. BOSI: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I believe 55 miles an hour, which most people probably travel 70. I'm not guilty of that, though. The location of the sign, the distance set back from the shoulder of the road. And the reason for providing off-premise directional sign for the communities that are east of that location of the sign, I think, justifies it. And I don't consider it precedent setting. I consider it only justified because of the location and the communities that it's benefiting both -- I have to state on the record, then, Sapphire Lakes and -- what was the other community back there? Because eventually the sports park, we have to be clear, will be developed, and something will go back there. So I see it as beneficial from a standpoint of public notice and public safety. And for that reason, I would support the deviation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So I think we've got the unique circumstances covered. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 42 of 65 And the size of the signs, what was that, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Sixty-four feet on -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Square feet. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sixty-four square feet. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: On each side. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And also there will be an exhibit showing the attractive -- the aesthetically attractive sign that we saw, and this will be substantially similar aesthetically. So I think those are -- MR. BOSI: And a limitation of only five subdivisions -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And it will be subject to the height limitations as specified in the PUD. MR. BOSI: In the PUD. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt, is that your motion then? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. And my motion is to approve both the -- to transmit -- or to adopt and forward to the state the adoption of the GMP amendment, and the companion item will go to the Board of County Commissioners for the Lords Way PL202000000114 [sic], Collier Boulevard Lords Way MPUD. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And you can also throw in the PUD. MR. YOVANOVICH: GMP. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: He just did. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I did. That was just what I stated. The GMP amendment and then the -- and the Collier Boulevard Lords Way MPUD. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Recommend for approval. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion? Did you want to say something, Mr. Yovanovich? MR. YOVANOVICH: I just wanted to make sure we had the right things on the sign. CHAIRMAN FRYER: As far as you're concerned, we do? MR. YOVANOVICH: You're perfect. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. 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 SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you, applicant. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We didn't hear from Norm. I mean, Norm's been there. He was really eager to talk. MR. YOVANOVICH: He still gets paid. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: He still gets paid. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. It's -- let's talk about our calendar, our agenda for today. It's 11:36. We've got two items under Section 11 of our agenda. Do we want to break for lunch, or do we want to plow through? And a subsidiary to that question is, how long is 5.A.a Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 43 of 65 Mr. LaRow's presentation? MR. BOSI: I believe Mr. LaRow's presentation will probably take about 30 minutes with questions and answering and things -- questions, things like that. I did want to remind the Planning Commission you did have your first item that's been now moved to the fourth item, which is the Golden Gate subdivision. We can probably get to that before you guys break. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you for reminding me. Let's do that now. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: There's people from Immokalee here, I think, waiting. I think those people have been here all morning. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Waiting for Item 11? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Immokalee. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I -- may I ask -- we haven't gone into recess yet. May I ask the members of the public, are you here to speak -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, Sue. Sue? Question. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. Are you here to speak on the Immokalee matter or the Golden Gate? MS. FAULKNER: They're here for this last item. CHAIRMAN FRYER: On which? 11 -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: The Lords Way they were here for. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, okay. Thank you very much. So now we're going to hear -- and I will -- let me call it. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: There's still people. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: They were all here for the Lords Way, but they didn't speak? CHAIRMAN FRYER: ***All right. So this is matter PL20210001560. It's a Land Development Code amendment to create site design standards and waive subdivision improvements for Golden Gate Estates, and this matter is purely legislative in nature with no quasi-judicial companions, so we don't need to swear in witnesses or have ex parte disclosures and, also, in case anyone is wondering why we're hearing this in the daytime and not at five minutes after 5:00, it's because it would not change the zoning map designation of more than 10 contiguous acres of land and is not an ordinance or resolution that will change the actual list of permitted conditional or prohibitive uses of land within a zoning category. So that's why we're here during a daytime meeting. And with that, go ahead, sir. MR. HENDERLONG: Good morning, Commissioners. Rich Henderlong, principal planner, Planning and Zoning Division, LDC section. This amendment establishes the use of a minor re-plat for an access driveway drainage and utility easement with improvements for future lot owners when existing vacant Golden Gate Estates platted tracts are not located on an existing roadway and are subdivided into lots for connection to an existing roadway frontage. Over the past 30 years, the county's approved various minor subdivisions with differing improvement requirements through the construction plan and final subdivision plat, the PPL process. There -- at that time there were no required -- these improvements required no infrastructure such as a connection to a water and sewer transmission line and a subdivision development plan which is typically required of all subdivisions that are three or more -- or greater. You have several examples in your packet on Exhibit A on Pages 11 and 15. Staff identified that there are 44-plus vacant tracts which are 6.75 acres or greater that could be subdivided into three or more lots as a minor re-plat. Each of these lots must be a minimum of two-and-a-quarter acres in lot area in order to conform to the Estates zoning district requirements for minimum lot area. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 44 of 65 These larger Golden Gate Estates platted lots are subdivided by the minor re-plat with this amendment, and it will require a dedicated 30-foot-wide easement, utility and drainage easement, a constructed 20-foot-wide dust-free green gravel -- free gravel driveway, and a cul-de-sac turnaround improvement for emergency vehicles. The construction design of the dust-free gravel driveway is shown in your LDC packet Appendix B on Page 10. In order to circumvent the potential of aggregating too many of these vacant adjacent platted lots, the amendment also establishes an acreage restriction of no greater than 20 acres. Lastly, at the time of recording the minor subdivision re-plat, the driveway easement itself with limited improvements shall be dedicated for perpetual use of the public, constructed for access, drainage and utility purposes, and be maintained by a newly established property owners association. I just want to note that all the improvements associated with the amendment or an applicant are to be completed prior to the recording of the re-plat. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Rich, we've been dividing lots in the Estates 30 years, probably more than that. We'll blame it on Stan. How's that? MR. HENDERLONG: John Houldsworth. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: John Houldsworth. John, are you listening? My serious question: This is just simply to clean up the process and codify an LDC amendment now what was typically required as we did each review? MR. HENDERLONG: In the past, they had to post the performance bond -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MR. HENDERLONG: -- do a construction maintenance easement, and then also go through this process of the full-blown plat -- re-plat approval process. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. MR. HENDERLONG: What this does is it saves an applicant from having to follow the full plat approval process and make it a more expedited process and guarantee to the county that the maintenance -- the access easements will go on to stay with the new property owners and the land and that the original lot owner who comes in for the re-plat, he will be obligated to construct that road, get it all done before he can even -- the county will accept that re-plat and also set up and establish a little neighborhood association -- a property association for the maintenance of that improvement -- those improvements. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, this is an absolute improvement, it really is. MR. HENDERLONG: It is. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What puzzles me is it's been this long. Is it just all of a sudden we just said, gee, this has been happening -- it wasn't that common, but we would have several of them a year. Is this becoming more prevalent, so now we're establishing firm rules? MR. HENDERLONG: You're spot on. Because of the scarcity of land and the development potentials for these other vacant lots, that's what's going on. In the past -- I think there were 19 of these that were done over the 30-year process, roughly. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, not many. MR. HENDERLONG: Not many. And now they're becoming more frequent. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well -- and I see that the DSAC unanimously approved this. They made a slight change, which was accepted. MR. HENDERLONG: Yes, and it's incorporated in the LDC amendment. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And, of course, they're the ones that have to deal with it. They recommended approval. MR. HENDERLONG: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I see no objection. I'm prepared to recommend approval, but I turn to my fellow board members. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. No one else is signaling at this point. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 45 of 65 Anything further, Mr. Henderlong? MR. HENDERLONG: No, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Do we have any members of the public? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: (Shakes head.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: We do not. Thank you, Mr. Youngblood. We can now deliberate and entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'd recommend approval as proposed by staff. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll 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 SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you, Mr. Henderlong. MR. HENDERLONG: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Rich, this is a great proposal. Thanks for cleaning this up. I mean, it's -- MR. HENDERLONG: Well, credit goes to John Houldsworth and the developer for this area. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I'll credit John, then, too. MR. HENDERLONG: He's really happy this is happening. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Now, I -- just based upon the past comments and preferences that have been expressed by the Planning Commission, I'm guessing this is how you want to proceed, and tell me if I'm wrong. First of all, we should take a court reporter break and then come back from that and plow through these items and just take a late lunch on our own. Anybody disagree with that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Then that's what we'll do. All right. It's 11:44. Let's come back at 11:55 for a court reporter break. We're in recess until 11:55. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: How about 12 o'clock? CHAIRMAN FRYER: That would be fine. We'll come back at 12 noon. Thank you. Stand in recess. (A brief recess was had from 11:44 a.m. to 11:59 a.m.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ladies and gentlemen, let's return to session. MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much, Mr. Bosi. ***All right. We're at Agenda Item No. 10, old business, and I don't believe we have any old business, so that would take us to Item 11, and I think we have -- that's new business, and I think we have two items, starting with 11A, which is PL20220001219. It's the statutorily required local planning agency review, and that's us, we're the local planning agency, of the proposed updated Collier County Community Redevelopment Plan, and specifically the Golden Gate's Estates plan for consistency with the Growth Management Plan. It's legislative in nature. Is Ms. Forester going to be making the presentation? Please proceed, ma'am. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 46 of 65 MS. FORESTER: Good morning. For the record, Deborah Forester, CRA director. Just a quick overview of why we are here today. Again, we are under the Florida Statute Chapter 163, Part 3, the Community Redevelopment Act of 1969, which has been modified a number of times. That section of the statute provides an overview of what CRAs can and can't do and requirements of what has to be included in a redevelopment plan. In Collier County, we established the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency in 2000. We established two redevelopment areas, one in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle and one for the Immokalee community. We have two local advisory boards that provide recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners. In 2000, we also adopted the Collier County Community Redevelopment Plan, and there's a section specifically on Immokalee, and that is what we're going to be talking about today, plus Section 5 is the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle area and in both -- and the CCPC at that time found that plan to be consistent with the Growth Management Plan. In 2019, we amended the plan for the first time, and that amendment focused on the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle area. We made some other administrative changes and, again, the CCPC found that plan to be consistent with the Growth Management Plan. How do we get funded? It's primarily through tax increment financing. This chart here shows the financial contribution the county's made to the redevelopment program over the last 20 years. You can tell the dip in the recession that happened and then the increase in funds over the last couple of years getting us back to just about the same point we were at the height of the market back in 2008. Typical projects that are included in the redevelopment plan include both capital and noncapital, and our plan does provide both of those types of projects. So what are we proposing today? There are some minor changes in Section 1 of the overall plan. The first one references the 2019 plan amendment. The second one extends the life of the Immokalee, only the Immokalee CRA, for an additional 30 years. Bayshore will be sunsetting right now in 2030. And then Section 4, we completely are eliminating the previous Section 4 and replacing it with what you have today. And then in our appendix, we are adding the resolution from 2019. So our planning process, this was kicked off in December of 2020. We had very intense community involvement. Because of the representation in Immokalee, we have held meetings in both Spanish and Creole. We've had online surveys in both Spanish and Creole. Our staff, Christy Betancourt, who's here with me today, has gone out to the community, had several small focus groups. The review of the plan has been done at our community advisory board, our local redevelopment planning advisory board. They've reviewed it, provided us comments, and then finally in February they endorsed the final changes to the plan, and that brings us here today for your review. So how the plan is laid out. The organization, we have a brief introduction. Our goals, objectives, and strategies are in 4.2. 4.3 includes the background and baseline data. We're trying to keep that as accurate as possible. We've made some cleanups on the dates provided in the memo to you by Mike Bosi -- or from me to you in your agenda packet, and then Section 4.4 is the redevelopment plan discussing about implementation, how we can prioritize, and our funding strategies. And then 4.5 is general requirements, and these are basically things that are outlined in the statute and how we address them in the plan. And many of these are consistent with the same language that is in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle plan. And then Section 4.6 are all the exhibits that are related -- referred to in the plan. So our overall vision statement: A rural community that provides safe and affordable multi-generational living opportunities, interconnected pedestrian transportation connections, a pristine environment, and a thriving economy that celebrates a diverse culture. We have five 5.A.a Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 47 of 65 goals, several objectives under each of those goals, and then strategies to help us implement those goals. CHAIRMAN FRYER: If I may quickly interrupt. I apologize. MS. FORESTER: Sure. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We're talking about a redevelopment plan. MS. FORESTER: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And, of course, we're trying to see if it's consistent with the Growth Management Plan, and the names are similar, and also in both we talk about goals and objectives and policies. And so I just want to, I guess, remind myself and perhaps the other members of the Planning Commission that the Growth Management Plan is certainly the senior document that we have to measure against. We're looking at consistency, and what we're looking at is what's called the redevelopment plan that's junior to the GMP. MS. FORESTER: Correct. It's not part of your Growth Management Plan. It's a separate document that stays on its own -- stands on its own. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Right. And this will then -- this will go to the Board of County Commissioners? MS. FORESTER: Yes. It will go to both the Board sitting as the Community Redevelopment Agency first and then the Board of County Commissioners second after the CRA approves it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And their task is also to approve for consistency? MS. FORESTER: No. Well -- no, your task is that, and then they're tasked moving forward with the redevelopment efforts underway. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Subjective approval. MS. FORESTER: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sorry to interrupt. Go ahead. MS. FORESTER: If I'm giving you too much detail, if you let me know, I'll move on quicker. All right. Our first goal is to preserve and enhance the rich mix of cultures and heritage in Immokalee and embrace new ones as they're identified. We've got three objectives in there. A number of our strategies, which I don't list on the slide, include a lot of collaboration with different organizations and how we can get the Immokalee brand developed and used throughout the community. Economic development, you notice we have a number of goals here -- or a number of objectives here. We do have a lot of focus on economic development in that community working with the airport and identifying Immokalee as a strategic location from a regional perspective. Immokalee has a number of designations under different groups to help us with rural economic development efforts. Housing. Again, our goal is to provide a mix of housing types and price points to allow for safe, high-quality units in Immokalee. We have two objectives. One is to support multigenerational housing opportunities and the second one, which is a big focus area, is neighborhood initiatives, and that is sort of a holistic approach on how to work on one neighborhood at a time. In the plan, we've identified 10 neighborhoods, I believe it is, and one emerging neighborhood which is the Heritage PUD, which has never had any development on it. This would be -- and we've identified two we'd like to start with. That's the south Immokalee area and then the Eden Park area, and the reason for that is we've been focusing a lot of our infrastructure over the last couple years in the south Immokalee area, and we've been working on partnerships in the Eden Park area, and there's a number of infrastructure projects along Lake Trafford Road that are also underway. Infrastructure. We have maintained high quality of life to all residents and visitors, and this infrastructure list varies from water quality down to mobility and transit in that area and to 5.A.a Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 48 of 65 improve and maintain coordination with our other private and independent service and utility providers such as the water and sewer district, Immokalee fire control, and Lee County co-op. And then our final goal is implementation and administration, and this is how we can maximum our collaboration with other organizations as well as making sure that we fulfill all of our fiscal and legal and ethical standards as are required under the statute. And it also looks at how we can better coordinate with the Immokalee beautification MSTU (Multiple Services Taxing Unit), and assure that we have a targeted and balanced distribution of projects throughout the Immokalee redevelopment area. It is a large area. Then we focus on an action plan. Because we are proposing this is going to go on for 30 years, we've broken it down into three phases: A short-term phase, which is a five-year approach typical of most capital project phasing; then a mid-term 10-year planning horizon; and then a long-term, which is 15 and beyond. We also recommend that the plan be reviewed every five years so that there can be adjustments made in the planning document and keep it focused on what the community needs are. And at any point in time the Board of County Commissioners could evaluate the timeline on implementation of this plan. And, again, we're -- and the Board directed us in 2019 to look at this plan amendment to extend the life of the Immokalee CRA until 2052. And then how do we prioritize our projects due to limited funding? Again, it's looking at how can we best maximize and collaborate with our partners, look at ways that we can better address health-and-safety issues, geographic distribution of projects, and then look at an annual work plan and a five-year planning horizon. We've identified opportunities for redevelopment. These 11 areas, I believe, were identified in the staff report you received. These, again, are areas that the community felt as opportunities for us to look at redevelopment to improve the community and also improve the economic base in that community. Again, if it's not included in the redevelopment plan as far as the project goes, then you're not allowed to use any of the TIF funds that are included, so we tried to be as inclusive as possible. Our funding strategy is to, of course, use our tax increment along with funds from the MSTU and the partnerships, look for additional grant funds, and then to build on that coordination, collaboration, and partnerships. This is a 3 percent growth rate that is looking at the TIF projections over the next 30 years. On the bottom I've noted that our total TIF, if this went just straight line, increase was about $62 million. Our estimated capital improvements are 71 million. So there is a gap and a need to look at other opportunities to help leverage and partner with those funds. So our next steps, we're here today to look at the consistency with the Growth Management Plan. Following that, we will provide a notice to all the taxing authorities that is required by the Florida Statute, and then it would go to both the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency for an adoption hearing and then the Board of County Commissioners for adoption hearing, and those typically are held at the same date. And with that, I can answer any questions. I do want to recognize, again, our Immokalee CRA staff and our consultants, Johnson Engineering. Christine Fisher is here with us from Johnson. They've assisted us in preparing this plan. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. We have two commissioners signaling. I'd like to, if I may, jump ahead with a quick question. I think it will be pretty quick. With respect to public safety, you've got the Immokalee Fire Protection District, which has Engine House 30, 31, 32. And, of course, that's the district and that's a taxing entity, and that's separate. But they share with ambulances, right? Medic units. And it seems to me that one of those engine houses was or perhaps is now operating out of a trailer. Has that been -- MS. FORESTER: So we have one operating fire station there. I think we have added some additional -- COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Mr. Chairman? In Ave Maria, that was in a trailer, and 5.A.a Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 49 of 65 that now has a full deluxe over-the-top Taj Mahal fire hall. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. That's all I needed to know. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: It's wonderful. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So that was a quick question. Thank you for that. Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just a little educational question. Explain tax increment funding. MS. FORESTER: Okay. So what happened in 2000, we looked at what the property values were in Immokalee, and that becomes our frozen tax base. So every year when the taxes come out and that property value tax goes up, the incremental difference, say it was a million dollars in 2000, in 2001 it was two million, so that million-dollar increment multiplied by the county unincorporated millage rate times 95 percent comes into our trust fund. So we only get the incremental increase, and that is -- the idea is that we are promoting redevelopment, new development, and so that community can use those funds to continue to implement their plan. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I'm going to follow that line of reasoning. That's a good question, because it's always a confusion what the TIF is. But in your staff report it says no fiscal impact. That is really not true. There is a fiscal impact to the taxpayers in the county because we make up the difference, if you understand what I'm saying. So you take the TIF, and that TIF you keep above the base, but the rest of the taxpayers in the county, that is a loss to us in the county on the taxes that we would have received, so we're making that up as taxpayers. MS. FORESTER: Well -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: If you understand my logic. MS. FORESTER: I think what you're saying is because those funds would have gone into the General Fund -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. MS. FORESTER: -- that could be used anywhere in the county -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. MS. FORESTER: -- instead they're being focused into an area that's been identified for blight. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. MS. FORESTER: And those same funds would go to programs that Immokalee has identified such as stormwater improvements, sidewalk improvements, and you have staff that is looking at partnering and helping to leverage those dollars. So it's a philosophical, I think, question about -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. I have no argument that just from the standpoint of understanding there is a fiscal impact, and the fiscal impact is the loss of TIF in the General Fund. And that -- and the Board makes that decision, and they are directing now that the money be utilized specifically in the Immokalee redevelopment area which, again, is a policy decision. I just want to make, for the record, that it stated no fiscal impact. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm glad you said that, because I was going to say it as well, and I agree with you that I think it's going -- the money's going in the right place, but it's going to have to be made up for elsewhere. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Mr. Bosi. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Zoning director. As author of the staff report, just let me defend that statement. The adoption and the recognition of the redevelopment plan, as consistent with the GMP, has no fiscal impact. The creation of the CRA has a fiscal impact. It's the CRA -- 5.A.a Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 50 of 65 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thank you. MR. BOSI: It's the CRA creation that has the fiscal impact. And you are right -- you're right, but -- and Deb's right, because -- and I think the Chair recognizes the usefulness and appropriateness of the allocation, but it does have a fiscal impact, and because there was a finding of blight and identification of a need of an intensification and an infusion of capital to help address that blight. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have a follow-on. Of course, we're 20 years into this CRA, Immokalee -- I won't cover the others, but the CRA, and a lot of good and a lot of money. Talk to me -- if you could expand a little bit on the airport, specifically the accelerator, there was money put into the accelerator program, the facility out there. Has it been, in your interpretation over 20 years -- I can't remember when that went in, 2004, '5, '6 time frame, there were different businesses they were allowing to rent in there and other things. This was a facility built at the airport to promote business on the airport property. MS. FORESTER: It's the culinary accelerator. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The culinary acceleration, and there was -- wasn't there another accelerator there as well? MS. FORESTER: That was in the early days in 2000. I think it was incubator -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: An incubator. MS. FORESTER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thank you. MS. FORESTER: That facility has been leased out by a private individual, and it is full, I believe, at this time. But the culinary accelerator, which really helped small businesses grow, we support that initiative, and we think that the culinary expansion in Immokalee makes sense. We have a rural agricultural community. One of our biggest success stories has sort of outgrown her space at the accelerator and is now looking for an additional larger place because she's gotten very successful, and you've seen her products in a number of stores. She does private labels for Wynn's, for Alfie Oakes, so she's been very successful. And they've got a number of other culinary businesses there, so that, I think, has been a success story and something that the CRA looks at helping to promote and expand and is part of our economic development plans. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is the -- I can't recall. Is the airport authority within the CRA -- is the airport -- MS. FORESTER: Yes, the boundaries are -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is it -- the boundaries are within the CRA boundary? MS. FORESTER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is it -- is there -- are there competing dynamics between monies for the airport versus businesses and other types of things, or is that pretty much resolved? Because -- or is it -- I'm trying to think of the way I want to ask this. Does the airport kind of run -- MS. FORESTER: Yes, they're very independent. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- push its weight around, so to speak, over the CRA? CHAIRMAN FRYER: I thought -- I thought the BCC was airport authority. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: They are. MS. FORESTER: Yes. It's a separate authority, right, just -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Separate authority. MS. FORESTER: They're, like, the agency. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But it's the same folks. MS. FORESTER: Yeah, but we don't compete. I think we're really good partners. We've been working on getting some plans done for a Site Development Plan for one of their parcels with grant money that we've received from our rural economic development group, 5.A.a Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 51 of 65 Pharaoh, and so we work very closely with the airport on -- just our whole goal is to bring new businesses to that airport. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The other -- they're going to -- here in 11 it talked -- and it says shovel-ready site. I mean, are there actually shovel-ready facilities out there? MS. FORESTER: Well, that's one of the things we're working -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You're working on. MS. FORESTER: -- with is to try to get to that point. We've done a concept plan. We hope next year that we can get some funding to do, actually, a Site Development Plan and then get to the point where we'll have building plans approved for that site. So when someone comes to the door, as you know, a lot of businesses they need a building right away. And so the more we can help streamline that process so that they can be in a building, the better it is for economic development. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I thought we did that many years ago, too, didn't we? MS. FORESTER: You know, it takes time, and there's cycles, right. We go up and down. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yvonne knows that. Back in earlier days, I mean, there was a Site Development Plan for businesses and others to go in there. I wish it the greatest success. Just -- I often really don't understand -- the Immokalee airport, certainly -- has certainly potential to offer intermodal transport away from the big commercial airports and for cargo and other types of things, and it just seemed nobody ever really jumped on that bandwagon. At one time there was a proposal for this huge development of an airport in Central Florida, but it seems to me Immokalee would answer that need. MS. FORESTER: And they're working on getting grants. They're just completing their one runway expansion, and we know that they're finalizing plans with the National Guard to come out with the training center and also Mosquito Control, so there will be a lot more activity at the airport in the coming years. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Quick side question. I had a couple questions. But you mentioned expanding of the runway. What would that allow? What kind of aircraft? What kind of expansion would that allow? MS. FORESTER: That's not going to allow your heavy cargo planes because of, I think, the length of it, but it will help with safety, I believe, with smaller aircraft that are private jets that are coming into the area. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. So in my -- I think probably in my first month on this commission, we took a trip to Immokalee, and it was to -- it was for the restudy of the Immokalee Area Master Plan. And, of course, I'm quite familiar with you with regards to the Bayshore and Gateway Triangle CRA. And what I was amazed at with the Immokalee was the level of collaboration that had taken place that went into that plan. I literally felt like you drew every possible resource in and every voice, and you blended it all in. It sounds like you've attacked this a similar way, really aiming for high collaboration. So it's hard to draw a fault in what we've read. It looks like a very exciting plan. We've seen the CRA in Bayshore. I mean, I feel like I've witnessed over the last few years a transformation of Bayshore, and I think, you know, partly and largely to the credit of the CRA. What are the most exciting opportunities that you see for Immokalee, tangible opportunities with the CRA using the funds and just in the overall strategy and collaboration that you've established in this plan? MS. FORESTER: I think improved pedestrian safety has been something that we've been striving for for the last 20 years. COMMISSIONER FRY: Does that include bicycles? Because I understand -- 5.A.a Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 52 of 65 MS. FORESTER: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- a lot of transportation's via bicycle out there, too? MS. FORESTER: Bicycle, walkers. Transit is very important out in that community. We were fortunate working with our Transportation Department to get the TIGER grant, and that TIGER grant is bringing in a substantial 20 miles of new pedestrian connections, so that is going to be taking place right now. They're in design build. And once that neighborhood is completed with their pedestrian things, we see an opportunity to go in there and help with housing in that area as well. So I think housing is our next biggest challenge. We are -- we hope to collaborate more with our Housing Department here to help with replacement of existing trailers, bring in new product. And also there is a big demand now for market-rate housing. People there want to be able to live and work in that community. And you see -- it's very encouraging to see young students who had graduated from the high school, gone off to college, and now coming back and being teachers, setting up their own businesses. The Chamber of Commerce has really grown. They're partnering with Ave Maria now, so there's a great synergy there, and I think as more development goes east, Immokalee has a great opportunity to take advantage of some of those other improvements and job opportunities. COMMISSIONER FRY: So less demand and a transitioning from trailers to more market-rate housing? Is that -- MS. FORESTER: And quality housing, you know. COMMISSIONER FRY: Quality housing. MS. FORESTER: And just -- and even, you know, mobile homes that can be earlier build or more recent build so they come up to standards is what we're looking for. You know, there's a definite need for all income levels in the Immokalee area. COMMISSIONER FRY: To Joe's point, I guess, how big an opportunity do you see the airport being in all this, in the growth and, I guess, just the evolution of Immokalee? MS. FORESTER: They have a lot of land out there, and they've -- you know, there's some challenges there because the land is held under the airport authority. They can't sell it, or they'd have to repay some of their grant money. But they are leasing that land at a very reasonable price. And so I think once they get some more of these improvements done with the National Guard and with Mosquito Control, there will be more activity, and so I think more people will see the benefit of coming. We also partner with Hendry County, which is our neighbor to the north, and they are doing an inland port there, which is one, I think, that Mr. Schmitt had mentioned, that they're trying to build that to take off the relief or the burden from Miami. So this will be an internal flight area for people unloading cargo from the Caribbean coming into that area and then help distribute it throughout the region. So that partnership with Hendry County, I think, is very important as well. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. No one is signaling, so I'm going to take this opportunity to summarize and perhaps tee up a motion. What's before us is a determination that the community redevelopment plan that has been proposed is consistent with the Growth Management Plan. I've read it, and I found no inconsistencies, and unless there's further discussion, I'd entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER FRY: So moved. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER FRY: It was stated well. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 53 of 65 COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. Thank you, Ms. Forester. MS. FORESTER: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Before we go to our last matter, I want to ask staff, Mr. Bosi and Mr. Bellows, we need to revisit our summer calendar in a way that I think is favorable to us. So let's talk about that, gentlemen. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. For the record, Ray Bellows. We checked the scheduled petitions for the summer, and we recommend that the June 16th meeting, which we don't have this room anymore, can be canceled, and whatever petitions that are being scheduled can easily accommodate the remaining schedule even with the July 21st meeting being canceled as well. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good. So we're going to have two holidays. We're going to have June 16 and July 21? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And we need to vote to approve that. I'd entertain a motion. Any questions? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll make a motion. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I make a motion to approve as proposed. CHAIRMAN FRYER: A second, please. COMMISSIONER FRY: 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 SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. That will be our schedule. Thank you very much. ***Now, 11B, our final item of the day, at least our final scheduled item of the day, is a presentation from Jacob LaRow, the county's new manager for Housing, Grant Development, and Operation, and it's entitled Housing 101. Mr. LaRow, you are recognized, sir. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Do we have any resource, Mr. Chairman, that's available to us? CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think we're going to get a PowerPoint, aren't we? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Okay. But there's nothing -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's in the packet, too. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's in your packet. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: Oh, the PowerPoint? Yeah. It's just, like, four or five slides, okay. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 54 of 65 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, sir. MR. BOSI: Chair, could I have two seconds? I just need to -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Of course. MR. BOSI: -- pull up the PowerPoint here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Certainly. COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: I'm going to move that we deny that request. Motion withdrawn. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It will take more than two seconds. CHAIRMAN FRYER: While this is pending, will anyone up here from the dais have any other new business? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm just curious, what does the next meeting look like? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Busy. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Upcoming petitions? MR. BOSI: Yeah. For the record, Ray Bellows. We do have, I believe five, items on the agenda. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Five items? COMMISSIONER KLUCIK: And just out of curiosity, when is our next kind of evening carry-over meeting scheduled? CHAIRMAN FRYER: We haven't scheduled that yet, and I don't think staff is ready to come forward with a proposal on that; am I right? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. We're still a way from establishing other night meetings. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. Mr. LaRow. MR. LaROW: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Jacob LaRow, manager with CHS. I do have just a brief number of slides. I do have some -- a script here I'd like to read from, and then, I guess, at the end, if anybody has any further questions regarding some material that I've referenced, I'd be happy to provide that to the Commission as requested. But I intended to want to try to keep this very high level, a 30,000-foot level, and then hopefully engage with the Commission with some questions and hopefully some good answers for you. And then I just had a quick question. I know there was maybe a request that I provide some context regarding a compliance or long-term monitoring on a previous item. Would it be appropriate if I just address that generally during this? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. I think -- I'm guessing that we're anticipating around 30 minutes for the total presentation. If you can cover that along with the other material, please go right ahead. MR. LaROW: Okay. Yeah. I didn't dive into compliance necessarily with the Housing 101, so maybe I'll just start with that. So the project in question, I believe the Lords Way that they had an existing affordable housing density bonus agreement, CHS does have a grants compliance unit within our division of Public Services Department. We do all the grants compliance -- not me personally -- it's a different manager and her team -- for all the public services. And so we have a -- we have a system set up where, depending on the project, we have annual monitoring. And the way we're proceeding with projects such as Allura or Lords Way, some of these others that were mentioned, is annually -- approximately September of every year, we will reach out to the owners or the developers of record and engage them with an update in terms of where they're at with their projects. As I'm sure most of you are aware, approval of PUDs and -- and I apologize if I get out of line with my planning language. I'm not a planner by trade, so if I say the wrong thing, I want to apologize in advance. But that just allows you to do something. So we have a couple of PUDs and things of that nature that have been approved in years past, and there hasn't been any development. So we just kind of have a hodgepodge of projects 5.A.a Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 55 of 65 where some get started almost immediately. They have their financing lined up, and some had the approval. You might have securities that secure the entitlements for those PUDs, and they don't move on them or they sell them, and so we just have a number of projects in various stages of completion. And I'm working on an update for the Board. That was one of the topics I touched on briefly during my presentation at the February 22nd meeting, just some projects that were recently approved over the last couple of years. So last fall we sent out the September mass letter. We've engaged these folks. We follow up. And in particular this project, Lords Way, the one that has 147 units, I'm currently engaged with the marketing or the property management firm that is doing the lease-up and that sort of property management for that property and bringing them online in terms of what the expectations are, what kind of documentation they'll need to maintain, and when CHS staff will be out there to monitor to ensure compliance. So we do have a system set up in place to address that. And so, you know, should you have any questions at the end, any grant or detail you want me to touch on, I can certainly elaborate as needed. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. LaROW: You bet. So I just wanted to say, hey, I appreciate the opportunity to come before you kind of touch on Housing 101. As I mentioned earlier, I just wanted to keep it high level, but I do have some detail I'll speak to on each slide. And, obviously, just a casual observation. But the frequency and volume of talk about housing in our community today is probably one of the main reasons I'm here before you at the moment. So I have a PowerPoint presentation. And, again, it's not meant to be exhaustive, but hopefully it's a good primer to at the end, when I end with the incentives or the regulatory relief that will be eventually coming before this board here in the next month, we'll have a good history of kind of what the county has taken -- what steps they've taken, when they've taken them, and kind of where we're at today. All right. So from a housing perspective, really, any kind of issue you discuss, for that matter, whether it's environmental protection, traffic issues, you kind of have to know what your need is. What are you looking at today? What's the current status quo? And it's really important to understand that because in order to provide direction or guidance and programs and that sort of thing, moving forward you need to know kind of what you have in stock. And so before you I just have a couple of variables to consider. And really what this is a buildup to is the housing demand methodology that the Board of County Commissioners approved approximately four years ago. So vitally important to analyze, what's your existing inventory? What is out there today? We had a comment or a public speaker earlier that was talking about all these rental -- affordable rental projects that are going up. What does that look like? So just a couple quick numbers for you. According to the Florida Housing Finance Corporation, which is probably the largest financier either through direct lending or through bond financing in the state of Florida, there are approximately 48 properties representing almost 5,300 units -- assisted units in Collier County today, and the vast majority of those are being funded through corporation programs such as 9 percent tax credit, if you've heard something -- that terminology used before, the 4 percent private activity bonds, tax exempt bonds, and also the SAIL program. So those totals, to my knowledge, yet don't include the units that will be brought online and in the inventory largely due to action taken by the county, and what I mean specifically to that are the Allura projects, those projects that are delivering affordable units but, to my knowledge, do not have any other government financing to help support the ongoing operation of those -- those 5.A.a Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 56 of 65 properties. So also it's -- and it's important to know as staff what our limitations are in terms of what we're actually looking at here. So as we move forward and we get more of those housing developments online, I'm going to work with the state to try to see if we can figure out some way to incorporate our units that Collier County, through our policies and programs, are bringing to the citizens. It's also important to know that -- it's hard to believe in this day and age, but there is what we call NOAH, and those are naturally occurring affordable housing units. So those would be units that are out in the market whether it's for-sale or rental units that, given the price point and given a certain AMI targeting, would be, quote-unquote, affordable to a household at a certain income level. So as one might expect, as the demand has increased, the amount of NOAH, naturally occurring affordable housing, is shrinking, and because of the, I guess, susceptibility to market demand, NOAH units are less reliable to count on long term than the units that are developed through PUD commitments that have 30-, 50- or 99-year commitments. So moving down to the Item 3, population growth. So, obviously, we don't live in a bubble. Well, I pretend to not live in a bubble. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Different kind of bubble. MR. LaROW: Static, I think, is the word I wanted to use. Things are dynamic. So not only just -- well, in population, just increased, not only just births, but migration. Florida has seen -- I think over the last five years is in the top five states in terms of net migration. Even, I think the -- I pulled some statistics from July '20 to July 2021, despite being more deaths in Florida for native Floridians than births, Florida yielded a net migration in immigration of 259,480 people. So those folks have to live somewhere, right? Inevitably, many of those are relocating to Collier County. So because of the effect that population growth has on housing supply, we use that as a determinant to -- in our methodology to project how many housing units at what income levels we'll need to try to meet demand. And I think it's also fair to state that just, you know, because someone's housed doesn't necessarily mean that's a healthy housing situation. Terms such as "housing stability" or things of that nature where you talk about, do people live and rent or own a home that allows them sufficient income to cover their other expenses outside of paying for rent or their mortgage? And a common benchmark used in the housing industry is 30 percent of your rent or, excuse me, 30 percent of your gross income. If you do not exceed 30 percent of your gross income for your housing costs, which would include utilities, then you are stably housed from an economic standpoint. When you exceed 30 percent, then you're rent burdened. Anything greater than 50 percent, and you're severely rent burdened. So it doesn't take much imagination to realize that as families or households spend more and more money on their rent, they have less disposable income to pay for other essential services and needs such as healthcare, education, food, and that really creates housing as a key aspect of social determinants of health; that if you do not have a healthy housing situation, it has external impacts on many other services that Collier County may provide. COMMISSIONER SHEA: You asked -- MR. LaROW: Yes. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Is that -- you said the 30 percent does include things like the sewer bill, the water bill, the taxes? I know there's a lot -- the utilities, that's all in the 30 percent, not just what you're paying for rent or mortgage? MR. LaROW: Yeah. So let me answer that real simply in terms of how HUD looks at that. So if you want to do a development such as, you know, David Torres and you want to play in the HUD arena, when you look at what 30 percent is when you're establishing your rents, you either say your rent is inclusive of your utilities, and then if it's noninclusive of your utilities, then you do a utility allowance is what they say. There's a calculation for that. So, yeah, generally to 5.A.a Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 57 of 65 your point, it's anything that you would need to operate and live in a house: Gas, electrical, that type of thing. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Well, the only reason I say that is oftentimes we just think about rental rate, and if the rental rate doesn't include the utilities, you could have another 30 percent. MR. LaROW: That's true. I mean, that's why when we talk about those types of things, we try to keep it streamlined to a certain degree, because you can really go down a rabbit hole when -- I mean, that one's pretty straightforward, but there's other aspects in terms of very granular detail which is important, but sometimes it can distract from the larger picture that, you know, people are trying to paint. COMMISSIONER FRY: During the Lords Way item, we talked about that -- some pretty discouraging news, I thought -- that affordable housing really is only applicable to the rental market in Collier County, that it really is not realistic to apply it to for-purchase housing. Is that -- is that part of your equation, the purchasable housing or just rental? CHAIRMAN FRYER: At the low level, it's both. MR. LaROW: Yeah. At the risk of -- I'm not a developer, but I do know that it's a similar equation when you talk about the development of rental housing that you need a subsidy at some level, when it's cross-subsidy using your market-rate units to offset the operating costs because you're losing out on the rent, the restricted rents, and so you have that cross-subsidy. Similar to development of for-sale housing, people do it. I won't deny that it's probably a little more difficult, but it's really -- it's -- in a similar fashion you would have a markup on your market-rate housing. So, essentially, much like your market-rate rental is, to some degree, subsidizing your restricted rents on your affordable side, similarly, your market-rate for-sale housing would subsidize the below market. I mean, Habitat, case in point. I mean, there's people that do it. Not everybody can do it. It's a unique model. It is not easy, but it is possible. COMMISSIONER FRY: You mentioned -- I thought it was around 5,000 affordable units in Collier County. You threw out a number early on. I didn't write it down. But would that be comprised of rental and owned property, or is that really only rental properties? MR. LaROW: That would be -- those would be rental properties. COMMISSIONER FRY: Rental properties. MR. LaROW: Yeah. And I believe I printed it off, and this is -- that's from the data -- Shimberg data clearinghouse, and that information is rolled into our methodology that will be on the next slide. And that's -- I can certainly provide that if people want to peruse that. But to your point the -- and another thing, too, is the compliance aspect of for-sale housing is a little more difficult. I mean, you take a 100-unit rental property, you've got one owner, common ownership, you're dealing with one person. Maintaining 30-year affordability on 100 different units, it's a bit more cumbersome, so -- but it is possible. So the -- I guess -- let me see. Where was I here? So unit of measurement. Then, really, that's kind of the cap. At this point, what are we talking about? What do we need? What outcomes or objectives do we need when we're talking about how do we address housing affordability? And the -- and I realize this is very small, so let me see if I can zoom in here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's a very informative slide, though. MR. LaROW: Yes. There's a lot of information here. And really, the -- what I just discussed on the previous slide is really built into this model in terms of, really, roughly -- you look at what you have, you look at what your future demand is, and then you calculate -- and this is, as you can see up here, the methodology's goal of reducing housing cost burden 1 percent a year, plus a yearly population growth with existing supply, and these are the -- these are the units needed yearly by income over here on the right. So for your information, this is last year's figure. We update this annually. And, really, the catalyst for that is when HUD releases the new rental and income limits which traditionally are 5.A.a Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 58 of 65 the 1st of April. They're probably a little bit behind just like everybody else. So a lot of that, then, will pull information from Growth Management. We get the -- that's where we get the new approved units. So we would pull information when those units are -- had been approved and will be coming online. We pull information from the Property Appraiser's, that's the NOAH that I referred to earlier. We just look at existing home values. We also pull information from Shimberg, as I mentioned earlier, and also the realtors. So we pull government information. We pull private-sector information to try to get a better picture of really what we need. Previous methodology, I think, didn't include population growth, and maybe they didn't pull information from the realtors and things like that. So this is an improvement over -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: When you get your 2022 spreadsheet finished, would you just automatically please copy all of us rather than wait for a project? MR. LaROW: Yeah. So that would -- we would take that to the Board, the Board of County Commissioners, and they would approve it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. And then as soon as it's been approved, be sure that it gets into our hands. MR. LaROW: Sure. Yeah, not a problem. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. LaROW: You bet. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Will that come before us prior to it going to the BCC? No. Okay. So, yeah, please automatically send that to us as soon as it's effective. MR. LaROW: Sure thing. And I think I had on here building on the construction of -- or the single-family affordable model. I don't believe I have it on here. But as you can see up here at the top, when we talk about very low income and extremely low income, we're talking about people earning -- a three-person household earning this or below. We don't even -- we don't even look at existing home inventory for them, because those households are not in the market for home ownership. And we have existing programs, and one of them which Deborah had alluded to working with us to help in the CRA, is we have a state housing program; it's called the SHIP program. It's funded through the Sadowski Trust Fund where 65 percent of our funds have to be expended on homeownership activities, but we also had income targeting. Thirty percent of our expenditures have to serve those at low and very low incomes. So you can imagine the logistics it takes to roll out programs in order to comply with the state requirements given the situation we're finding ourselves in. So hopefully when the new income limits roll out here shortly, we'll see some relief from that, and we'll be able to better expend those monies and serve people. So before I move on to the next slide, I know I'm -- I know Mike gave me 30 minutes. I didn't time myself for 30 minutes. I can certainly talk for that long. But did anybody have -- I could pause here and ask anything specific; otherwise -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I've got a signaling device here that shows no one right now is signaling, so please continue. MR. LaROW: Fair enough. Okay. So addressing the need. So we've kind of -- we've touched on, you know, what the need is, what it looks like. And I think it's important, especially some -- going back, again, to Board -- one of the many Board actions taken on the February 22nd meeting was for CHS to engage with other public entities that are experiencing affordable housing issues. It's not unique to county government staff. NCH, you'll hear them talk about retention. Also the school districts. So it's important -- and with staff is that we recognize that we can't do things alone, so we need partners. And so as part of our effort to move on a lot of this discussion that's going on, we're engaging with those folks. There's been talk about a potential special meeting with the Board. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 59 of 65 We're working that out and seeing what shape that takes, but we'll be inviting those folks to contribute and come to the table and see what they can do to assist all the work that you as a Planning Commission and the Board is doing to make affordable housing easier to develop. Again, financing. I mean, that's easy. I mean, Mr. Yovanovich alluded to it quite starkly about the problems with doing for-sale affordable housing. It requires -- especially when you're doing the deep income targeting, inevitably it's going to require some kind of subsidy, as I alluded to earlier, whether it's a direct subsidy, a loan, a grant through CHS or through the state. So it's important to know who provides that financing. Some folks don't realize we have a Housing Finance Authority here in Collier County that supports affordable housing. There was just an item I think last September where they helped provide taxes and bond financing for Brittany Bay, which is a tax credit property, to do some rehab. I think there's in excess of 400 units there. So there's additional partners that kind of happen outside of our -- CHS's scope. Identify and address impediments. So just briefly on that, this kind of largely -- much of the discussion that you folks probably hear on a regular basis when you meet. And I don't want to paint this in a -- when we talk impediments as necessarily a negative light. It's just realizing that some of the unique features in developing affordable housing maybe adversely impact due to certain Land Development Codes or regulations that other market-rate housing may be able to overcome because they don't have the similar restrictions. So one of the plans that we develop within CHS for our federal funding is called the analysis of impediments. So we develop that every five years. And one of the things they look at is, holistically, what are the roadblocks from making housing, developing housing, and things of that nature? And I'm proud to say that the last plan that went through last year and went to the Board in June identified that largely Collier County regulatory does not have any kind of impediments that existing codes do not unduly restrict or eliminate the ability to develop higher density housing. And, in fact, in that report they pointed to the Community Housing Plan, if anybody's familiar with that, that plan that originated out of the Urban Land Institute of 2017, that it identified a number of steps that the county could take to address housing affordability and of which four of those are winding their way through the process right now. So Collier County's taken tremendous steps to address and identify impediments and, through these regulatory relief efforts, will help offset those impediments that still may exist. And then preservation. One of the topics that came up, it was a very hot topic in the City of Naples, was the Gordon River apartments. So that -- those apartments that had been NOAH for quite some time, their long-term commitments had expired. But nature, location, other -- other environmental or economic reasons, those units stayed affordable for some time but then, ultimately, that housing project was a victim of, I guess, kind of our own success, if you will, in some kind of sense in that that land became more profitable for a potential market-rate project, and then we had what we saw. So preservation is important. What do we do when we have the properties? What can we do to make sure that those stay long-term affordable? And, again, the county has taken steps through the Bembridge property, also the Golden Gate Golf Course, where there will be a 99 long -- 99-year long-term ground lease to ensure those units that are developed on that land are affordable for, in a sense, perpetuity. So we'll also establish the Community Land Trust. That's another method that can address affordability for for-sale programs. And the land trust model is essentially that you have a non-profit that acquires the land, holds the land, and then the homebuyer just purchases the improvement, and that's the only piece that transfers hands through purchase and sale through the natural homebuyer and sale process. So you remove the cost of the land from the acquisition cost, and that then makes that more affordable as a result. How am I doing on time? Am I already at half an hour? MR. BOSI: Close. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 60 of 65 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. You're at a half, but take a few more minutes. MR. LaROW: See, here I thought I was going to be done in 10 minutes. Apologies. So real quick, developers, you know, for-profit, nonprofits, those are the folks -- so these are the people that I'm used to working with bringing projects to the table. So they're the David Torreses; they're the Gary Haines of the world. They collect a developer fee. People ask, well, why would you develop affordable housing, you know, with restricted rents? There is a -- there is a return on investment there. You know, there's -- the state has non-profit set-asides, so there's a certain number of financing that has to go to nonprofits to develop housing. They enlist architectural engineers, general contractors, legal, et cetera. Obviously, there's the government as well. So through land-use restrictions or un-restrictions, we make -- here at the local level we can make or break projects sometimes. Also, there's federal level. Some of those projects I mentioned earlier about the tax credits, those are all federal programs. Financiers. You have banks. Tax credit syndicators and investors. So those are the folks with the tax credits that invest in these projects. They get a dollar-for-dollar tax break over 10 years, 15 years for these programs. So that enables the deep income targeting. So if you got -- you're developing a project and you do a 9 percent deal, an investor comes along and says, I'll give you 70 percent cash, and you don't have to -- you only have to finance 30 percent of your project. That's what allows these projects to be built and maintained long-term affordable. And then, of course, here one of the -- one of the items I brought to the mock seventh grade commission meeting on Tuesday touched on transitional housing. They voted down unanimously affordable housing, but they approved transitional housing, which is a step down from permanent housing. I won't go into details here but, you know, when you're talking about housing -- and I don't think we've had much of that here recently -- where folks are, you know, struggling with substance abuse, mental health, and things of that. Some of the other partners you'll find in that are social service agencies such as Salvation Army, St. Matt's, folks like that to provide the services that are outside just the housing realm. And I touched a little bit on the financing already. Public Housing Authority. They're in the mix. You hear that Section 8 quite frequently. We call that housing choice vouchers. Some of these other programs out here. Somebody -- I believe it was Deborah talked about manufactured homes. We do have programs, the SHIP program I mentioned earlier, that in our strategies we can -- we look at demo and replace of manufactured homes because we realize manufactured homes is a component of the affordable housing stock. You don't see that in a lot of these reports because you don't see tax credits on manufactured homes and things of that nature. But by and large, those tend to be more affordable. And this is a good spot for me, because we'll get into this type of stuff, and I worry about stepping over myself. So here, entitlements, zoning, conditional uses, variances, all stuff you've seen. Parking requirements is a large item for affordable housing. People talk about reduction in actual trip usage for projects that have affordable housing components. Unit size. I think this was something that was brought up maybe last fall. We do see, depending on -- nationally some programs allow smaller unit size for elderly or senior housing and then -- where you wouldn't see that maybe on family housing or individual housing. They just look at the nature of who's going to be served, and they allow those kind of flexibilities as a result because, keep in mind, those will be affordable. Those will be set aside for the seniors, elderlies for 30, 50 years. Wow, I had a few left, didn't I? So this is an existing affordable housing density bonus. This is a program -- again, this is one that was existing on -- Lords Way, I believe, was an affordable housing density bonus agreement, Mike, or am I -- 5.A.a Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 61 of 65 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. MR. LaROW: Yeah, okay. Yeah. So we've seen this. These are often used in conjunction with some of those that are federal financing because at the low-income targeting, often you'll see folks need to secure other financing in order to develop those units. And then here are the four pending incentives, and this really -- I mean, oversimplification wouldn't do it justice because I know there's been a lot of work that's been involved in this. But, you know, when we talk about density, locating affordable housing units next to transit corridors or in areas -- activity centers, it really just makes sense. You're aligning your affordable housing strategy with the concept of use for transit. Also then, of course, density. Density -- increased density allows you to develop units at a lower per-unit cost, so -- but I won't beat a dead horse there. So that's all I have. Apologies for the last -- run through those last slides. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Your presentation was very important. And we listened carefully. We had an opportunity to review the slides beforehand. It's an area that we believe is exceedingly important. As you know, we had unanimously recommended that one of our own, Commissioner Shea, be placed on AHAC, and he's on there, and we're delighted that that's the case, and we know that we are going to be even better connected to the process of affordable housing with his involvement and with you being on board. We have three commissioners who are ready to ask questions or make comments starting with Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Jacob, the -- as you well know, affordable housing's been an issue for years and years and years. And it's a -- I'm going to just explain. It's a dynamic of the cost of land, the cost to build, and the price point. Developers -- as we all know, developers don't build to lose money, because it costs a lot of money to go through the development process, and it does. Most people don't understand, between permitting, engineering design, mitigation, I mean, it's in excess of a million dollars or more just to even go through the process. My point is that in order to get the price point down, the real answer to affordable housing is density. Density is a bad word in this county. You go to other -- look at other developments in other areas of the country, and to get affordable housing, we're talking 15, 20 units an acre. If somebody proposed that here, anything above six becomes a major significant event. But in order to get affordable housing is density, but density brings other issues with it. My question to you and to the committee and to the -- and I guess you deal with the commissioners. The only -- I only -- the only way you can create an affordable housing product at a price point that meets the criteria that one can afford based on the income level is density. Is there any movement -- other than these density bonuses which are four to six -- I mean, six, eight units an acre -- I mean, I'm talking about 16, 20 units an acre. Small units, compact units. Anything on the horizon do you see in regards to that? Mike? MR. BOSI: May 5th the Planning Commission's going to review the four of the final initiatives of the 2017 ULI Community Housing Plan. Within each one of those four -- well, three of the four allow for 25 units per acre when you're dedicating it to an affordable housing that's going to target certain income groups. So, yes, in fact, the proposals -- three of the four proposals allow for density up to 25 units per acre because we recognize that density is the key. Joe, you put your finger right on it. It's -- the only way to address the supply-and-demand imbalance that we have is allowing for higher density. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I think the only way, really, to take the "bad word" connotation out of it -- and I agree with you it's there if all you say is "density," but if you combine it with the concept of smart growth -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And that's why I asked about the proximity to the activity center. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 62 of 65 There are places where greater density will really work and places where it won't. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, there are places -- I'll even take Florida -- Orlando and other areas where high-density affordable units were put in, walkable communities, but they have to be in and around where services can be provided. But I could tell you, the years that I've been here -- I mean, it is complete opposition because it's -- well, nobody wants it anywhere near them. And I'm not saying the affordable housing. They just don't want the density. We hear it time and time again. Traffic and congestion and all the other things that that brings. But that -- that is how you resolve the issue if you -- if a -- to make it profitable, and that's the word that's got to be used. Profitable and viable for a developer to build, it has to be high density. MR. BOSI: Yep. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Enough said. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: So, Jacob, I just wanted to have a real-life scenario. So let's just say you have an apartment complex and rents are 1,500 to $2,500 market rate, 20 percent is affordable housing or essential service personnel. Are you considering that part of this, essential services, or is it merely the income ranges that is considered technically part of affordable housing? MR. LaROW: Yeah. To put it simply, I think folks have looked at -- and sometimes I answer questions that people don't ask, so -- I think essential service personnel, there is an -- and I'll provide this, too, as part of the Community Housing Plan -- they mapped essential service personnel median salaries and things of that nature, and they looked at where they fall with the income ranges. And so you'll see a lot of those folks, with the exception of -- unfortunately, there's one woman that received a raise from the school, which is normally, hey, great, but then she now made too much to qualify. But, yeah, generally you'll see -- and I'll provide this, and I think it will answer your question. It's often seen as kind of a proxy that folks that are working in those essential service personnel starting wages often fall into those income targeting brackets. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Is that, like, the 80 to 120 percent range? I know that's a loaded question, but -- MR. LaROW: Well, I think some of them, like your skilled trades, sometimes are probably even lower than that. I don't have the numbers in front of me. I know I can -- in a couple minutes I could pull it up. But, for example, the one schoolteacher, I think she was maybe a single -- single-person household. She got a raise, and she just -- she was just over 80 percent. So, you know, a double-edged sword. COMMISSIONER FRY: These developments, you have a blend. You have some units that are reserved for less than 80, some are 80 to 120 -- let's just say you have that blend -- and they're building 500 units. Are they -- is it -- is it a -- can we -- do we know that all the units are actually going to be the same? A one-bedroom that's reserved for an affordable housing less than 80 is the same one-bedroom that's for an 80 to 120 that's reserved for them versus a market rate? It's just they're getting the rent subsidized or they're paying a lower rent for the same unit, or are they able to actually create lesser units that they charge less for to meet the affordable housing requirement? MR. LaROW: Yeah -- no. Take, for example, the Lords Way, the 147 units that was the discussion today, in that affordable housing density bonus, it spells out similarity -- there's a term in one of the programs I work with, but it's basically like for like; that the units should float, and you wouldn't be able to tell an affordable unit from a non-affordable unit. COMMISSIONER FRY: They simply pay less rent for the same unit? MR. LaROW: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Does the less-than-80-percent median income pay less rent than the 80 to 120 percent if they're broken out within the development? MR. LaROW: So I guess part of the complication could be is that between 80 and 120 5.A.a Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 63 of 65 is -- you generally see a breakdown every 10 percent. So you'd have a -- if you came in and you were at 80 percent AMI, there's a corresponding rent for that. But if you came in and you were at 100 percent rent, then there -- or 100 percent AMI, then there's a corresponding 100 percent AMI for that. COMMISSIONER FRY: So it's a table? MR. LaROW: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: A table of your income versus what the market rate is and then you have a certain level of discount below that? MR. LaROW: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: And the lower your income is, the more the discount? MR. LaROW: Yeah. Well -- so you technically could be in an affordable housing unit and be rent burdened. This goes back to the methodology where HUD uses to calculate those incomes is they take -- they basically take a household of four at the median, and then they have a methodology, and then they populate the rents and incomes up and down. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It depends upon the deal that's struck initially with the developer. And if we treat a developer who's willing to create 140 percent of AMI the same as one who's willing to go to bat for 80 or 60, you know, I think that we've got to incent the people reaching out to the lower groups and disincent the people who want all kinds of credit for aiming at 140 percent, because that's not where -- I mean, there is need there, but it's not anywhere near the need that's much lower levels. MR. BOSI: And, Chair, just to let the Planning Commission know, the Affordable Housing Density Program that is codified in 2.06 of our LDC and the table that was provided within Jacob's presentation, that's how it's set up. If you attend to your lower-income groups, if you attend to higher percentages of units dedicated to those, your bonus is higher than what it would be if you were attending to the 120. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And we need to be sure -- MR. BOSI: Percentage. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- that they're getting enough density to incent them. MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But that -- MR. BOSI: That's the whole concept. As you said, the market-rate units will buy down -- will buy down these lower costs -- these lower-cost units, so you have to supply a higher density. That's why we give a wider bonus for when you attend to the lower levels, because they have a better offset. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And an important concept. Commissioner Shea, you're still ignited. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Ignited? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You're on fire, baby. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I think it's a follow-up to Karl's question. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I'm not sure I got the answer. So how does -- can you have an affordable housing tag, and then you're just saying for essential services personnel with no income limits on that? Because I see a lot of these that say, these are set aside for essential services personnel. That just means only people in that range of the AMI that they agree to will get first rights of rental or purchase if they're essential service? How does that interact with the dollar amounts? MR. LaROW: So yes, you can -- the Board -- the Board of County Commissioners can -- and you've seen it. For example, Courthouse Shadows. One of the commissioners mentioned that. So that one has an ESP component, but there's no income or rent restriction to that. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So they just have to be one of those categories of ESP that's 5.A.a Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 64 of 65 defined? MR. LaROW: Exactly. Now, on Allura, that one has a combination of both. I think 55 units are set aside for ESP, and then of those, it's, like, 30 that also have an income restriction. So it's -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: You could have both or just one or the other? MR. LaROW: You can have both. You can have one or the other. I think the idea with essential service personnel is that those trades, those job descriptions were identified as, again, essential to the running of the county and providing those key services. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Unfortunately, it's so easy for developers to circumvent any requirements that -- all it is is a right of first refusal. And if you make the right of first refusal at market rates and you hold it off for 30 or 45 days, that's your only penalty that you held it off the market, and that is not going to help necessarily -- COMMISSIONER FRY: That's not affordable housing. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, it's not. It's really illusory. MR. LaROW: Yeah. That -- I wouldn't disagree that the monitoring for a marketing piece in terms of compliance is something that is -- at least in the world of affordable housing, you can monitor incomes, rents till you're -- I mean, we have folks that do it in their sleep. It's the marketing that kind of -- when you get away from the traditional elements of what is affordable housing and the restrictions you put upon it, as you introduced potentially those avenues where it's a lot harder to keep track of. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. No one is signaling at this time. Is it fair to say that we've had our questions answered, and are we ready to extend our thanks to Mr. LaRow and move on to the next item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It seems like we are. Thank you very much, sir. MR. LaROW: Appreciate your time. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. All right. Public comment. I doubt that we're going to have very much of that because the house is empty. So without objection, we'll move to adjournment. And without objection, we're adjourned. ******* 5.A.a Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 7, 2022 Page 65 of 65 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1:16 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 L. LEWIS, RPR, FPR-C, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: 04-07-22CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 21,2022 Page 1 of 25 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida April 21, 2022 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Edwin Fryer, Chairman Karen Homiak, Vice Chair Karl Fry Joe Schmitt Paul Shea ABSENT: Robert L. Klucik, Jr. Christopher T. Vernon Tom Eastman, Collier County School Board Representative ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney 5.A.b Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: 4-21-2022 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 21,2022 Page 2 of 25 P R O C E E D I N G MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please come to order. This is the April 21, 2022, meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. Everyone please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: I ask the secretary to please call the roll. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Eastman? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Shea? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Present. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm here. Chairman Fryer? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Vice Chair Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Vernon? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Klucik? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Chairman, we have a quorum of five. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, Secretary. Addenda to the agenda. Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: Good morning. For the record, Ray Bellows. We don't have any changes to the agenda today. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Planning Commission absences. I want to bring up a subject for discussion and see if we agree on a matter, and it has to do with the single item that is scheduled for our May 5, 2022, Planning Commission meeting. This is -- it's not applicant originated. It's staff originated, and it has to do with the very important subject of affordable housing, so we don't -- certainly don't want to give it short shrift; however, it's only one item. And I want to be a careful steward of your time and the time of staff. And staff has indicated to me that they would be comfortable and it would be doable for us to move that single item and combine it with the five items that already are on the May 9 [sic] agenda. So without objection. COMMISSIONER FRY: May 9 or May 19? CHAIRMAN FRYER: May 19, yeah. Without objection, and seeing none, then we will continue the item that is scheduled for May 5, the affordable housing GMPA, to May 19. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: GMPA? CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's a GMPA, yeah, staff initiated. And we will not be meeting then. We would not have a first meeting in May. So my question then becomes, does anyone know about their presence or absence for May 19? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It looks like everyone who is present today at least at the present time thinks that they will be present then, so that's good. And if that holds, we will have a quorum. That's May 19. So mark your calendars that we will not be in session on May 5. Now, we have two sets of minutes that are before us for action this morning, those of February 17, 2022, and those of March 17, 2022. If there are no corrections to either of them -- 5.A.b Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: 4-21-2022 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 21,2022 Page 3 of 25 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I do have -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, then we will vote upon them separately. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: February 17th. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please go ahead. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: On Page 19 of 27 where it says "Commissioner Homiak don't use," it should say "we don't use them," and on 25, Commissioner Solis should be Commissioner Shea, I think. Another S word. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Another S word. All right. So does the court reporter -- did you get those changes? All right. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And with that, I will make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. It's been moved. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Moved and seconded that we approve the minutes of February 17 as amended. 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 SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: They pass unanimously. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman, I did have a question. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Of course. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I will not be here on May -- or correction -- June 2nd. Was that meeting canceled? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Was that the meeting that was canceled? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. In fact, I think our first meeting's in -- MR. BOSI: No. Mike Bosi, the Zoning director. The second meeting in June is scheduled. The 16th is the day that the Board of County Commissioners has the budget hearing within the chambers; therefore, the 16th is the June meeting that's being canceled. The first meeting in July is going to be conducted. The second -- which is, I believe, the 7th of July, and the 21st of July is the meeting that's being canceled, the second meeting in July. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Well, I didn't write down any of that, and so I'm going to ask you to email us, please, with the exact schedule so that we can all change our calendars. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So the June 2nd meeting is taking place? MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. I will not be here for that meeting. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: June 16th is not taking placing? MR. BOSI: Not taking place. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So we've got to at least update our calendars. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. So we will look forward to receiving an email from staff giving that to us, again, so that we can change our calendars. That brings us to the March 17, 2022, meeting minutes. Are there any corrections to those? If not, I'd entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: 4-21-2022 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 21,2022 Page 4 of 25 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: 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 SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: They pass unanimously. Thank you very much. BCC report and recaps. Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: On April 12th the Board of County Commissioners heard the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle LDC amendment. This was the second of two required meetings at the Board level, and it was approved on their summary agenda. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Chairman's report. Nothing today other than, perhaps, a quick word to remind all of us not to speak over one another. It makes it difficult not only for the electronic audio but the court reporter. And I know this particularly happens when we are moving quickly and crafting amended language and the like. We all are trying to speak as fast as we're thinking, but we need to pay special attention to the need not to interrupt one another when those times come, or at any other time. All right. Consent agenda. None today. ***Public hearings. We have two companion matters before us. They are PL20210002454, and that is the Hacienda Lakes North Area DRI Development Order Amendment, and PL20210001791, which is the Hacienda Lakes North Area MPUD Amendment. All those wishing to testify in this matter, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Ex parte disclosures from the Planning Commission starting with Commissioner Shea, please. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Staff materials only. COMMISSIONER FRY: Ditto. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Staff materials, meeting with staff, and matters of public record. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke briefly to Mr. Yovanovich, Ms. Crespo, and Mr. Frantz. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We can't hear. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke briefly to Mr. Yovanovich, Ms. Crespo, and Mr. Frantz. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich, and that is all regarding this matter. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. And with that, we'll begin with the applicant's presentation. Mr. Frantz. MR. FRANTZ: Good morning. Jeremy Frantz, for the record, with RVI Planning and Landscape Architecture. If you don't mind, I'm going to make one presentation but cover both of the requests today. So our team consists of Toll Brothers. We have Rich Yovanovich with Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester; myself, Jeremy Frantz with RVI Planning and Landscape Architecture; and Jackie Larocque with Atwell. Toll Brothers is familiar hear in Southwest Florida and, in particular, in Hacienda Lakes, the 5.A.b Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: 4-21-2022 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 21,2022 Page 5 of 25 subject today. They are the developer of Azure at Hacienda Lakes. So this is kind of a continuation of more Toll Brothers development in the area. And just to highlight where we are, you can see -- I'm going to try and use this if I can remember how to do these things. Our project is up here in the very northern section of Hacienda Lakes. To our south is the Swamp Buggy tract, and to the north is the Vido (phonetic) Isles, Willow Run, San Marino area. So we're really focused on this northern area of the PUD and not really addressing the larger PUD, although we're making some map changes and things like that. So advertisements and signs might have made it look like we're making changes throughout the entirety of the PUD. And as a reminder, the Hacienda Lakes PUD/DRI is currently approved. It's approximately 2,200 acres. It allows for residential -- a mix of residential dwelling types, retail, commercial, professional office, medical office, hotel rooms. There is a business park tract that also could allow for an education facility and, as I mentioned, Swamp Buggy attraction, and Junior Deputy -- Junior Deputy tract. The site that we're talking about today is a 144-acre portion of the overall PUD and has access on the west to Collier Boulevard and on the eastern portion of our project to the future Benfield -- future Benfield Road. We are not asking for any changes to those approved uses or any increase in density or intensity. Our changes are limited to reorienting the business park and residential tracts up in that northern area, and I'll show that on the screen in just a moment. We're adding some deviations related to signs, wall height, to allow a dead-end street, and to address buffer requirements. The remainder of these changes are mostly kind of cleanup changes. So we're adding some -- and updating some access locations, removing RV uses and references throughout the PUD, updating the development standards and incorporating some previous HEX/Hearing Examiner changes, and updating the PUD and DRI maps to reflect all of those things. So here you can see the current PUD up in the northern area and proposed. You can see -- I'll use this again. This portion of the northern tract allows for the RV uses. There is currently access on Collier Boulevard here. There is an access point to the northern properties there. And then, as I mentioned, Benfield Road to the east. Our changes are -- you can see the BP tract, the business park tract, has been reoriented. It does maintain the acreage that was previously approved, 35.38 acres, but just reorients the boundaries. You can see the two access points on the northern property line are circled red. Those are kind of adjusted and added to the request today. And the access points on Benfield Road and Collier Boulevard are adjusted slightly to reflect anticipated build conditions. Similar changes are reflected in the DRI. So we've modified the BP and the residential tract, we've updated those access locations to the same places as the PUD, we're removing the reference to the potential for RV uses, and updating the Lords Way/Hacienda Lakes Parkway change. We're in agreement with all of staff's Conditions 1 through 4; however, Condition 5, we don't agree. Deviation 18 is that deviation related to the buffer on the northern property line. I'm actually going to go back a slide, or two. So on the northern property line, the deviation allows for two separate scenarios. In this area west of the FPL easement, the deviation allows for no buffer to accommodate an anticipated development. That will all come in as one Site Development Plan with the properties to the north. So we're requesting no buffer there, as it will be a single development. And to the east of the FPL easement, we're requesting no buffer in the case that the properties to the north are rezoned to also allow for no buffer. And what we're trying to do there is take advantage of a really significant amenity in the lake that is to the north. In some places that lake will be expanded to the property line of Hacienda Lakes, and so there will be anywhere between 900 and 2,000 feet -- 2,200 feet of lake separation between residential tracts within Hacienda Lakes and to the north in what will become San Marino 5.A.b Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: 4-21-2022 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 21,2022 Page 6 of 25 PUD. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Frantz, I'm going to ask a question of you. And pardon me for interrupting, but I think this would be a good time. MR. FRANTZ: Sure. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is it fair to say that in each and every case where you are requesting a buffer deviation, relaxation of the buffer requirements, that that is to create a view of a lake or that there will be a lake there in each and every case? MR. FRANTZ: There will be a lake there. That is the intention. They're, you know, trying to take advantage of the ability to, yeah, view the lake, but also there may be some lake use rights as well. So we're trying to take advantage as much as possible to that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But the answer to my question, each and every -- and here's Mr. Yovanovich. What's the answer? MR. YOVANOVICH: The answer is, yes, there might be a lake bank, but the water may not be physically right on the boundary. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: And there will be no use rights. And Jeremy didn't know that, so I just wanted to clarify that on the record. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: But, yes, it's to take advantage of that view. There's -- Toll Brothers is working with the owner of the property to the north, and they both have agreed to no buffer. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So let me rephrase it. In each and every case where there's not to be a buffer, there's going to be a lake -- not necessarily a lake view, but a lake? MR. YOVANOVICH: There will be a lake view, not necessarily -- the lake water may not be physically to the boundary. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: There will be a lake -- there will be a view of that nice, big, beautiful lake. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm clear. Thank you. Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. The picture you're showing here, is that now an official rendering of what San Marino intends to construct? MR. FRANTZ: That's currently in CityView. I took this out of CityView. It's not the -- it's not been approved or -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. MR. FRANTZ: -- you know, heard by anyone, but that's what's currently approved. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But this is the -- oh, the mining site. What is it? MR. YOVANOVICH: Willow Run. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Willow Run. Thank you. It's the Willow Run mining site. And there is a significant lake back there already -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- from the mining and excavations, yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: And, Mr. Chairman, I think we were on the same page, but we're talking about the deviation is for the property east of the FP&L line. West is going to be -- it will be a joint Site Development Plan. That's why there's going to be no buffer west of the FP&L line. CHAIRMAN FRYER: There's no buffer at all, not -- and not a lake either? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, it's just going -- what's going to come in is you're going to have a unified Site Development Plan that's going to incorporate both property in the -- thank you, Jeremy. You'll see where it says San Marino parcel. That's property in the San Marino PUD, and then there's property in the Hacienda Lakes PUD. Those two parcels are going to come in as one 5.A.b Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: 4-21-2022 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 21,2022 Page 7 of 25 project, so that's why there's no buffer. We did the same thing up in the Tree Farm PUD up on the north part on town on Immokalee Road when you had two commercial tracts joined together to form one unified commercial development. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is this common ownership? MR. YOVANOVICH: It will be, yes, yes. It is common ownership today, and it will be in the future, yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. But -- so that's on the west side but -- MR. YOVANOVICH: West side of the FP&L -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- but on the east sides -- MR. YOVANOVICH: East side is to take advantage of the lake view. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And same with the north and south, to the extent that there's been any relaxation of buffer? MR. YOVANOVICH: North and south. I'm sorry. I shouldn't have said east and west. You know -- you got me all screwed up on my directions. North and south, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Directionally challenged again. MR. YOVANOVICH: I know. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So -- well, I hate to belabor this, but I just want to be sure that we have a clear statement. On the west it's going to be common ownership and a single development plan. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And on the north and south, there are going to be either buffers or lakes? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And then what about on the east? MR. YOVANOVICH: The east? The reference to east is east of the FP&L line. Where I just put the big, bold yellow, that's where the deviation applies. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So will there be either a lake or -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, there will either be a lake -- it will be a lake tract north in the San Marino PUD or -- and if we reach an agreement with the property owner to the north, there will be no buffer. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And what if you don't? MR. YOVANOVICH: Then there will be a buffer. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: That actually was my question, just clarifying that these are conditional on the acceptance of the unified site plan to the west -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- and of the agreement with the neighborhood to the north -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- for the properties to the west. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. Well, I guess, Rich or Mr. Frantz. The way the deviation is written, it sort of says first come, first served, meaning if you decide to build a multifamily or a triplex or a duplex or whatever on your side, does that now force -- the way it is written, does that now force San Marino to build the same product? MR. YOVANOVICH: Only if you accept staff's recommended change to our deviation. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct, the way -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We do not agree with staff's deviation change -- the change to that deviation. We believe that the distance -- the distance between either 900 foot to 2,200 foot is a 5.A.b Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: 4-21-2022 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 21,2022 Page 8 of 25 sufficient distance to separate it. For instance, we go in with -- we're not going to -- if we go in with single-family and San Marino wants to put some type of townhome product -- and I don't know what they're going to do, but if they wanted to put a townhome product in, we think the separation of 900 feet is sufficient to not require us to put a buffer along the lake bank or for them to put a buffer along the lake bank. The developers can take care of themselves to make sure, in their own agreement, whether they're comfortable with what each is going to do in their own project. That's why we don't agree with staff's recommendation. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: My question then -- I'll defer to staff when it's their time to present. But my question is, the way staff is recommending, if you build a certain product, that forces San Marino to build the same product. MR. YOVANOVICH: That is correct. That's what -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: They have no option. They may choose to build -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Or I have to -- or they could say, you know what, we're going to do something else, and then I'm going to go back and I'm going to have to plant -- I'm going to have to retroactively plant a buffer. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. So that's my problem with this. The way it's written, it sort of forces one to comply and follow the other. And I guess from my assessment, I believe that the separation is significant enough that that -- there should be no stipulation to require that the products match. For example, I live in a community. I have a single-family home, and I have a small lake behind me, and there are fourplexes and eightplexes. I bought the house. I knew they were there. So I -- and it's far less than 1,000 feet. So I guess when staff -- can they explain their justification when you present so we can discuss your recommended change. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. No one else is signaling. Mr. Frantz, do you want to continue? MR. FRANTZ: Okay. Yes. So I think I covered everything on this slide and, really, that wraps up my presentation. Staff recommendation is approval with conditions. We agree with Conditions 1 through 4. We're consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code, and with these changes the project remains compatible with the surrounding community and facilitates the continuation of the buildout of Hacienda Lakes. So any other questions, I'm happy to answer. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. On Page 3 of 21, it's our Packet 243, and I just want to make sure -- because I asked Mr. Yovanovich this on the phone. It says, reduce single-family detached side-yard setbacks from six to five feet; however, applicable minimum distances between principal structures will remain 12 feet. So that's pretty clear to me, but in some instances, there may be -- if a home is five foot on one side, then that means the other home's going to be seven foot. There will always be 12 foot between homes, correct? That's the way I read that. You'll always have a 12-foot separation. MR. FRANTZ: That's right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So for whatever reason, if there's a 5-foot side yard setback on one side, then the other home will be a 7-foot setback? MR. FRANTZ: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Clear. I just wanted to make sure of that for the record. Thanks. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just -- I wasn't around when the initial development came. Is 5.A.b Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: 4-21-2022 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 21,2022 Page 9 of 25 there any affordable housing in this? This is a pretty massive community, and I haven't heard anything about -- or has most of the land already been developed other than this piece we're talking about? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: We just had it last week. MR. YOVANOVICH: I was around for that one and did the original. There was -- there was -- at the time there was an extensive discussion about whether or not there was a need for affordable housing in this area, specifically in East Naples, because there was a lot of affordable housing in the area at that time, and the Board of County Commissioners did not impose in the DRI an affordable housing requirement. So the answer's, no, there's no affordable housing within this project other than you recently had a change to the senior housing parcel. But other than that, there was no requirement for affordable housing. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Why the change from six feet to five feet? It seems like a very minimal thing but, obviously, it's strategic in some way. MR. FRANTZ: You know, really, we see quite often that maybe a pool cage is built a little bit closer to the property line, accessory structures and things like that. It gives us a little bit of flexibility but still maintains the, you know, development standards that were approved, we think, in terms of principal structure separation. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Even if you have a zero lot line, then it's still 12 feet, so... MR. FRANTZ: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, this is the area, the last meeting, we just approved an -- and just for the record, again, affordable housing, we just approved a pretty significant development in affordable housing right across the street from Naples Lakes. So that was the large rental that went in there, so... CHAIRMAN FRYER: Lords Way. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Lords Way, yeah. And it's just the dilemma of the affordable housing and the opposition to it versus the requirement, and I just wanted to make sure that the record understood that there is a large component of affordable housing going to be constructed there. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Essential services. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Vice Chair, I'm going to ask you to please speak up a little bit. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Oh, I'm sorry. For essential services. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What about it? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It wasn't really affordable. It's not like low income. They're saying affordable. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. Those -- in the -- I think we now -- is it the Lords Way PUD? Yes. Now there are significant income-restricted units in that project, both the originally approved ones as well as the new units that were added. So I want to say it's somewhere around -- was it -- Mr. Chairman, we did the math. Was it around 20 percent of all the units? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, it was. It was just shy of 20 percent. MR. YOVANOVICH: Were income restricted? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: And there was a larger percentage set aside for essential personnel than the 20 percent that were income restricted. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Bosi. MR. BOSI: Chair, that was -- it was 20 percent, and it ended up to 76 units, and they were dedicated to 80 to 120 percent of the average median income, so it has income restrictions. And as 5.A.b Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: 4-21-2022 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 21,2022 Page 10 of 25 well as, the prior approval for the affordable housing, prior to that action within the Lords Way, there was 57-some-odd units that were income restricted, and 147 had to be made available to essential service personnel, and I think that's what Commissioner Homiak was referring to. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. And I wasn't going to bring this up, but I will. At the last Board of County Commissioners meeting a public speaker ran a clip of a comment that I had made with respect to affordable housing, which I see divided into three branches, really, one of which I believe and still believe is illusory, and I don't give it very much credit, and that's when it's set aside for 30 or 45 days for essential services personnel but at market rates. So, really, the only thing the developer or the manager or the owner is doing is keeping it off of the general market for that period of time. But nonetheless -- and that was a feature in this -- in Lords Way that was inherited from when it was previously before us. But I was satisfied with the meaningful affordable housing concessions that had been made as Mr. Bosi outlined. Thank you. Let's see. No one is signaling at this time. Anything further from the applicant? MR. FRANTZ: Well, I just want to clarify for the other folks in the room that our request today does not change any of those land-use approvals, and I'm not requesting any changes to affordable housing, just so that that's clear for folks who might not be as familiar with the area. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. I understand that we can't obligate you to set a trip cap, but I believe -- not that I have personal recollection of this, but from my research, that this might have been the project back in 2011 that gave birth to the request -- the requirement that there would be trip caps. And unless I'm mistaken, Mr. Yovanovich, I don't believe there's a trip cap inherited from the 2011 action. MR. YOVANOVICH: I just -- I'm sorry. My -- I don't think this was the catalyst to future PUDs that had a trip cap. That was -- we've had that concept around for quite a while, and I think we started to codify it in PUDs. This wasn't the project that set that in motion. That's all I was saying. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well -- and you were around. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I credit your recollection, but others have a different recollection. But that's really not relevant. I take it, though, that this applicant is not willing to establish a trip cap? MR. YOVANOVICH: I can't, because I don't own all the land anymore. It's much easier to do when you're coming in with a brand-new PUD. But we've sold off parcels to other developers, and I can't now artificially limit their trips. That's where I'm kind of stuck at. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I understand that, and I know it makes it more difficult that this is not the full PUD. This is just a segment of it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But it still could be done. And my concern -- in spite of what I know is coming to Collier Boulevard, my concern remains that with all of the development that's coming into the Hacienda area, I have serious questions about whether Collier Boulevard, even with its expansions that are planned, will be able to accommodate all that traffic and, therefore, I would like -- am making this public record of my concerns that we should be asking for trip caps even though they are segments of a PUD rather than the entire PUD. I'm not going to -- I'm not going to insist upon how I vote today, but I, nonetheless, wanted to have that word made public. MR. YOVANOVICH: And if I may, just briefly. You-all haven't seen probably any DRIs since you've all been -- maybe -- actually, Ms. Homiak probably has. This is probably the last DRI that's gone through. But at the time DRIs went through a much more heightened review process, especially on transportation-related issues, so -- and since we're not changing any of the density or any of the other uses, this has been analyzed at a very heightened time, and we're still subject to concurrency as we come in. So it's not like there won't be adequate assurances that there is capacity 5.A.b Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: 4-21-2022 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 21,2022 Page 11 of 25 on the roads when permits are pulled. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I understand that. And, of course, Tallahassee has made DRI amendments now localized, which I'm sorry that they did, but that's what we're working with, and I -- as I say, I'm not going to vote against this on account of the lack of a trip cap, but I just wanted to make a record that I wish that we were able to, starting now with that huge area that's undeveloped and with a view to what could possibly happen on Collier, very important series of segments on the AUIR, that we could run into some very serious traffic problems. So I've made my record. MR. KLATZKOW: And just to note, there is no transportation concurrency anymore. It's a dead concept in reality. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Indeed. MR. YOVANOVICH: One more thing, if I may. If you look at -- if you look at the DRI and the PUD, there were significant developer commitments to address traffic concerns. There's a huge section of the PUD that addresses setting aside land, conveying land with no impact fee credits. So transportation was front and center when the DRI went through, and in reliance upon those dedications, we agreed to -- you know, we -- we addressed our traffic impacts. So this is more difficult than just simply saying we want to impose a trip cap, because we have provided right-of-way and other commitments to address traffic. So I don't think it's as easy as just putting in a trip cap. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I understand. And I'm not going to be influenced one way or the other about that issue. It's just something that's of concern to me. Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Just for the record, as far as DRIs -- and, certainly, when I was the administrator, for my other colleagues, it was a pretty significant issue because of the Regional Planning Council. Though a great concept, it was pretty benign. We used to have to send DRIs through the Regional Planning Council. I guess, in my recollection, it really didn't mean much of anything because it really still fell on the local government. I think that's why Tallahassee said it's a local issue. My question to the petitioner, do you have any vested rights based on the DRI approval and traffic? Was there any determination of vested rights? MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't think -- well, we haven't gone through the formal determination, but I believe we have rights vested in this project through the commitments we made and the dedications we've made towards transportation. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: As far as the other developments within the DRI that either are under development or have been submitted, you have paid certain portions of the -- of the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We're paying impact fees. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Impact fees. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: We're paying impact fees. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, boy. Senior day today. Impact fees. So, essentially, there are already some vested rights that -- obviously, you haven't made a vested rights determination, but you do -- you must have some there by now. MR. YOVANOVICH: We certainly believe we do, but we've paid our impact fees as we're going through the project, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Vice Chair. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It is mentioned in here in a couple of places that total -- I'm sorry. Sorry. Total project intensity: In no event shall the project exceed 3,328 p.m. peak-hour trips. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Where do you see that? MR. YOVANOVICH: I thought there was one in there. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: 4-21-2022 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 21,2022 Page 12 of 25 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: There is. It's mentioned in here a couple times in the land-use conversion factors. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So that is -- that's for the whole PUD? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's Page 281 of the packet. I can't see the page because it's blocked, but... CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Well, thank you for your eagle eye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, I read it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Gee, I thought I read it, too. I missed that, though. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Anything further from the petitioner? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Staff? MR. BELLOWS: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Ray Bellows, planning manager with Zoning Services. I've worked on this petition with our consulting planner, Laura DeJohn, and we found this project consistent with the applicable elements of the Future Land Use Element, and staff has reviewed the changes for compatibility, and we support the deviations. We have a disagreement with the applicant on the buffer issue. And I do applaud the concept of having lake view corridors for both projects and working out an agreement. I'm very supportive of that concept; however, a complete elimination of the buffer east of the FP&L line seems excessive to staff, and we were hoping to have something like clusters of landscape trees every either 60 feet or 120 feet, something to that effect. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let me see if I understand. We're talking about the FPL easement. And is that the 900 to 2,200? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So what's on that turf now? MR. BELLOWS: There's nothing now. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Nothing? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And there's no lake, obviously? MR. BOSI: There's a lake. CHAIRMAN FRYER: There is a lake? MR. BOSI: The lake is existing. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Does it cover the full length? No. MR. BOSI: It goes all the way up almost to the eastern -- or to the FPL line; yes, it does. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's going to be expanded further to the south, but, yes, it's a substantial lake now, and more of it's going to be dug. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So is it fair to say, then, that on the -- we're talking about the east side, right? I'm getting confused here. On the east side that -- from one end of the FPL easement to the other, a very large portion of that will be lake, if not all of it? COMMISSIONER FRY: The FP&L easement runs north/south, I believe. It's like a dividing line that they're -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. And I mean from the north to the south on the easement. Is there -- is there a lake? MR. BOSI: The FP&L is north/south. If you're looking at the -- this here, this here -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. MR. BOSI: -- that's the FP&L easement. The lake where the buffer -- where the buffer request is starts, it goes here, over here, over here, over to here. So what they're looking for is no buffer along there. Staff is looking, could we have 60 or 80 or every 120 feet a cluster of trees to give a little more -- it's not going to block the lake view, but it most certainly will enhance the ambiance of the natural -- of the natural feel. That's what we 5.A.b Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: 4-21-2022 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 21,2022 Page 13 of 25 were looking for. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I'm -- I'm in favor of buffers, and it seems to me that that's a reasonable proposal. Do you want to say anything further about it before Mr. Yovanovich replies? MR. BELLOWS: No. For the record, Ray Bellows. No, I think that completes staff's concern on that issue, and we are recommending approval. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, what about this compatibility thing? The way you're proposing it, it sounds like whatever one builder builds the other builder has to build now. MR. BELLOWS: That would be subject to the agreement, that both parties understand that when one goes in, the other would have to either install a buffer or have a similar product type. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So -- but again -- MR. BELLOWS: Yes, if they don't have that agreement, then they have -- this applicant has to install the buffer as per code. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Which the buffer, then, would, for all intent and purposes, block the lake view? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But -- so you're objecting to a single-family home overlooking a lake where there may be -- MR. BELLOWS: Multiple -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- duplexes or -- MR. BELLOWS: Multifamily. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- or 1,000 feet? MR. BELLOWS: Well, it's also the ambiance of the area of the landscaping and buffer is generally not solely to screen unlike land uses, but it is an amenity for the area. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm not going to -- I don't argue the concept. What I have trouble with is somehow you're placing a burden on another property owner who is not party or parcel to this petition right now. And I know there would have to be an agreement made, but do you have anything from -- this applicant that is going to be allegedly called San Marino going to be coming in, do you have anything from them attesting to any type of objection to -- MR. BELLOWS: Not at this time. And so another option is just to say the first one in, if it's multifamily, has to build the berm and buffer. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, again, I have a problem with one development forcing another development to comply with what the one development did. Where else do we do that in county, or where have we done that? MR. BOSI: Let me provide a clarification. If they choose to have a different unit type, all they have to do -- they have to put the required buffer in. They don't get a deviation. So we're not asking them to do anything extra than the code would require. We're saying, if you have an alternative unit type, then you do have to install the buffer. And from my perspective -- I understand residential to residential is inherently compatible. We are just a little sensitive sometimes to the issue of single-family against multifamily. And if there was that arrangement, we thought there would be -- could be a benefit to require the buffer to be applied as the code would normally require it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Again, I have no problem with that, but where have we in the past encumbered one development to comply with this type of requirement? I just don't even understand how, legally, we can force a property owner -- it's residential adjacent to residential. MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And what's -- MR. BOSI: What we're saying is you don't get a deviation. You don't get to exempt yourself from the code that would apply. That's all we're saying. The code -- without this deviation, whatever they put in, they would have to put in a buffer. And we're simply saying, if it's not the same type of product, then the buffer would apply. If it's the same product, the buffer 5.A.b Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: 4-21-2022 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 21,2022 Page 14 of 25 doesn't apply. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So in this regard, they don't own the lake. It's the neighboring property's lake. They're just trying to take advantage of the view, of course, and the marketability. And so staff is saying, you can't do that? You cannot develop this to afford these property owners who may purchase this property the lake view unless you put in a buffer. MR. TEMPLETON: For the record, Mark Templeton, Development Review. When there's development adjacent to a lake, the code does allow for a modified buffer. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. TEMPLETON: And modified allows for up to 60-foot gaps between trees. The code contemplates this possibility of development next to lakes and says, well, if you've got a lake there, we can let you do up to 60-foot gaps between clusters of trees to allow -- afford some views to the lakes, and if the lake's wider than, I think, 1,500 feet, then the shrub requirement goes away. So it's pretty -- a pretty reduced buffer to allow for views to the lake. The code allows that right now. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But, Mark, would it allow -- you're saying they can cluster, as was suggested, a cluster of sabal palms, a cluster every so many feet -- MR. TEMPLETON: No more than 60 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- that, in reality, would not obstruct the view but would -- as you stated, would -- as stated basically that it would enhance -- provide some sort of easing or enhancement or whatever of the shoreline and create at least an appearance that you're looking for in that area. Does the petitioner object to that? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, yes. We wouldn't be asking for that. Give me a second to explain why. You have -- you have Stock Development who's the developer of San Marino. You have Toll Brothers who is the contract purchaser of these lots. They are working together to talk about how -- Toll Brothers' properties will have a view of the lake. Stock is perfectly comfortable with Toll Brothers having an unobstructed view of the lake because that will result in nicer homes being constructed within the Hacienda Lakes portion of the product which enhances the value of the lots in San Marino. So you have two developers who are experienced developers saying, we are going to reach an agreement as to what will happen on -- Stock on their PUD and Toll Brothers in their PUD. What I'm hearing staff say is, if Stock decides to put multifamily there, which is perfectly fine with Toll Brothers, Stock now has to put in a buffer for the multifamily, and I think I have to retroactively put in a buffer on the single-family because I'm no longer like for like. So I've got to tell somebody who buys a lake view lot, you may not have it forever because Stock may put in multifamily across the lake, when the property owner really wants to see the lake, because even if you cluster every 60 feet, we have a gap; you have trees and scrubs. So the person who gets the trees-and-shrub lot doesn't get the lake view. If I'm going to buy on the lake and I don't want trees in my backyard, I should be -- I should be able to do that. If I want trees, I'll plant them. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I want to remove the hypothetical, because if Stock's going to build there, I have to believe, as they have throughout Southwest Florida, build large single-family homes. That's, frankly, what's selling today. So if it's a single-family home and you're building a single-family home, what is staff's position then? MR. KLATZKOW: You know, you've got to get everybody in the same room. Because I agree with you; I'm a little bit uncomfortable with a decision being made here by somebody not in the room. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, I mean, I am, too. MR. KLATZKOW: I agree with you. If it's the pleasure of the Board, continue this item, get both parties in the room, all right, and hammer it out -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Wait. Hold on. MR. KLATZKOW: -- or deny the deviation. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: 4-21-2022 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 21,2022 Page 15 of 25 MR. YOVANOVICH: We have a PUD in -- it's going through this process. San Marino is going through the process with the very same deviation. It requires the property owners to agree. If they don't agree, no deviation. MR. KLATZKOW: You know, I hate when we start -- we start with one development, then they balkanize it. Then once we balkanize it, we just lose everything we originally planned for. You know, Heritage Bay is the perfect example of that where now we've got a traffic problem there because we can't get internal, you know, controls there because instead of having a single unitary ownership we've got multiple ownership, and now this community doesn't want that community to use their road and everything else. This is just what happens. If the Planning Commission's concerned that not everybody's in the same room, put this off till next meeting, and let's see if we can get everybody in the same room. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't have time for a continuance. Let's vote -- MR. KLATZKOW: What do you mean you don't have time for continuance? MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, you do. You don't -- you don't dictate when something goes, you know, to the Board of County Commissioners, Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm just expressing that we've been going through this process, and we think it's something the Planning Commission can vote yea or nay on. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Yovanovich, I know you've represented Stock in the past. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I am now. I am -- I am their representative as well. I know what they're doing in the San Marino PUD. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Is it fair to say that you, then, can speak on behalf of Stock? MR. YOVANOVICH: I can tell you that we are just looking to keep the flexibility in the San Marino PUD when it comes through, because you don't know what's going to be around two years from now when you're building the product. More than likely, I agree with Mr. Schmitt, it's going to be single-family to single-family or duplex. If I put twin villas on the Toll Brothers side, now Stock's got to do twin villas on the other side. Those are the types of things that I just don't know what I don't know. But if the developers are comfortable with that, why does the staff need to get into the middle of it? That's my only -- my only comment. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Bosi. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Can we not come up with some language that is less restrictive, I guess is the word I'm looking for? Because it does place an undue burden on a petitioner who is yet -- who is not here, of course, but is going through the process, and -- but I'm going to go back to my question. If it's based on today's market, I would have to believe it's going to be single-family and single-family. So what would, then, have to be to put in place if it were that? MR. BOSI: If it's single-family to single-family, there's no buffer from either side because it would be a -- it would be -- and the deviation in the condition does say that there has to be a unified agreement between the parties. So for them -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. MR. BOSI: -- for them to seek -- for them to receive the deviation request, they will have to establish and show that there is a unified agreement between the two developers. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Yovanovich, how far apart are the two developers in reaching the agreement? MR. YOVANOVICH: They're not far apart at all. It is imminent. So -- and the deviation specifically says if I don't present an agreement to staff that says it can be zero buffer, I have to build -- I have to plant the buffer. MR. KLATZKOW: Will you get that agreement before you hit the Board of County Commissioners? You said it's imminent. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, yeah. I'm thinking it will be signed before we get to the 5.A.b Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: 4-21-2022 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 21,2022 Page 16 of 25 Board. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, do you want to make that a condition going to the Board that you get that agreement? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll present it to the Board. MR. KLATZKOW: Do you want to make it a condition that you don't go to the Board without that agreement? CHAIRMAN FRYER: We can make it a condition. MR. YOVANOVICH: I will -- Mr. Klatzkow, I will present at the Board hearing the agreement. I can't promise you that it's going to be in the Board packet, is all I'm trying to say. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We have control over our resolutions, and if we think that that's an important step, which I believe is, we can make it a condition of our recommendation if our recommendation is to proceed. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Mark -- can I ask Mark to come up again? And based on your review, that is compatible, then, from a landscaping standpoint? If it's single-family to single-family and an amended buffer of whatever they're going to plant, is that what you're saying? MR. TEMPLETON: We're okay if it's like to like. If it's multi to multi or single to single, we're okay with a deviation with no buffer. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. All right. Somehow we -- I think we need to either add certainty to this or reword it a bit so that there is certainty when it goes before the Board. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I agree. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just -- I am uncomfortable from a standpoint of putting an undue -- I see this as an undue burden on a petition that we haven't even seen yet. I would prefer there be an agreement so when that comes in, we don't have to deal with this again. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I agree. I think the County Attorney's solution is a good one, and Mr. Yovanovich, who's careful about what he says, is not going to say that an agreement is imminent unless it's pretty doggone imminent. So I don't think that's an unreasonable condition to put in. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Again, I have to believe Toll Brothers -- correction, Stock -- because that's a pretty highly desirable piece of property back there, lake views, and large single-family homes are probably a certainty that will go in there. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'd like to make sure that I understand where each party stands here, just crystal clear. So, Rich, it's your contention that it's between you and Stock to determine what's best for the homeowners of both developments through this unified agreement, whether that's a buffer, no buffer. That -- it's -- you have the capability -- and you're looking out for the values of your homeowners, so you'll come up with what you think is the ultimate buffering solution that's best for them and for all parties, correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Especially in this scenario where there's 900 foot of lake between whatever I build on Toll and whatever Stock builds in San Marino. So, yes -- to answer your question, yes, they can protect the values of their own properties through this agreement. If they thought it was a bad idea to not have buffers, we wouldn't be sitting here today with both PUDs going through the process asking for no buffers. COMMISSIONER FRY: So if we approve it without the staff's recommendation, you could come to an agreement where you have single-family, they have multifamily, but you're -- you have 1,000 feet of continuous shoreline, no landscaping at all buffering the two, but that really is between the two of you? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct, and the property owner who buys the lot. I mean, they may want to have a couple of trees in their backyard, or they may want an unobstructed view of this large lake. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: 4-21-2022 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 21,2022 Page 17 of 25 COMMISSIONER FRY: They would have the ability to add their own landscaping? It wouldn't -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure, sure. Any individual property owner could do that. They're not prohibited from doing that. They just want to have the choice to do that. COMMISSIONER FRY: And from staff's point of view, you believe you're protecting the aesthetics, I guess, the overall value and the outcome of this project by ensuring that if it's not like to like -- so if it's townhomes one side and it's single-family on the Hacienda Lakes side, there are at least a stand of landscaping every 60 feet so that there's some breakup of this long lake shoreline? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. That is correct. We are looking at the scenario if they're like to like, we can support the deviation, but if it's multifamily and single-family, we prefer to have some type of buffer as the options we have been discussing. But the agreement will go a long way towards supporting that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, let's put some wording in there subject to a formal agreement -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It's already in there. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- prior to the Board of County Commissioners meeting. MR. YOVANOVICH: You mean before -- okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I mean, we'll put some language in there saying, you know, that an agreement will be presented, this -- this -- MR. BOSI: Yeah. As it currently exists, it says that there has to be a unified agreement between the parties. We can just put the timeline in and advance that to a nebulous timeline to the specifics of the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm fine with that, then. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And the effect of that would be that if for some reason an agreement were not reached, then our recommendation would not stand as a recommendation. MR. BOSI: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Are you okay with that, Jeff? MR. KLATZKOW: I'm just trying to implement what you guys want. COMMISSIONER FRY: But staff's position is that despite the fact that they come with a unified agreement, you believe that if it's not like to like, there should be some landscaping every 60 feet? Is that just because that's what's in the code, or is there another more tangible reason why it would really make a difference? When the developers that are selling the homes don't think it's needed, I guess I'm just trying to understand the justification. MR. BELLOWS: The LD -- as Mr. Templeton indicated, the LDC was created with a condition to allow for these lake views, but it does require 60-foot separation between the landscape clusters of trees. That is the concept that staff would normally support. But I don't have a problem in a unified project or where there's an agreement where both developers are working together harmoniously. It is a great feature, the lake, and we are supportive of that. We just want to make sure that in a -- unlike the residential scenario with multifamily and single-family, that there should be some kind of buffer. But if both parties come to an agreement, then we can support it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: When will this be going to the BCC? What does the sign say? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Probably within the next four weeks. MR. YOVANOVICH: May 24th. COMMISSIONER FRY: So, Ray, I hear staff saying that you would support allowing the deviation based on a unified agreement even if they decide, homes to townhomes, no buffer. You're okay with that? MR. BELLOWS: If both developers come in with their eyes wide open and have an agreement in place. The problem is we didn't have one at this point. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Just so we're clear, that's what my deviation says. My deviation 5.A.b Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: 4-21-2022 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 21,2022 Page 18 of 25 says I don't get to reduce the buffer unless I present an agreement to staff at the time I bring my plat, because that's when the decision has to be made. I have to show staff I have an agreement that there will be no buffer along those rear lots. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Most developments that -- builders that build, staff doesn't get involved in, nor does the county. Typically, they have landscaping packages that are required of the community at a certain value that need landscaping. This does not impact any of that. If there was a separate landscaping for three oaks trees or two sabal trees or whatever in the backyard, that's part of the landscaping plan for each individual home as its built. This is talking about an actual buffer. Okay. All right. Well, I'm great with it if we go with the stipulation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And it's essentially what was originally proposed, but if staff wants to put a date-certain in there, let's go with a date-certain. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sounds good. Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: I would just like to point out that I was prepared to back staff because of this reason: In a really hot market, I would assume a developer doesn't have to do as much as they do in a colder market in order to attract buyers. So I do think the staff -- part of what this role of the code is is to protect the county, the residents, and uphold some standards, minimum standards, so that even in a hot market developers can't cut corners that really reduce the overall outcome. But I think your saying that you're okay with it with a joint agreement satisfies my concern. MR. BELLOWS: The agreement is the key part of this. Even though it was part of the applicant's presentation, when we reviewed it we didn't have it in place. And there's still, on some level, concern about multifamily versus -- opposite a single-family. And our -- my preference would be to keep to that code. But in light of an agreement that's in place that the Board sees when they rule on it, then I think I can support it. MR. KLATZKOW: You either have a look to Naples or you don't, all right. And one of the things that the code does and the architectural standards do is it gives a special look to Naples. And anybody who doubts that should just drive around Lee County for a while, okay, and see what they look like, and let's see what we look like, all right. Every developer tends to not want to do the code because it's more expensive, okay. And so a development comes in here, they get the Collier County prices, but they don't want to do the Collier County requirements. So every time they ask for a deviation, what you're losing is a little bit of what makes Collier County Collier County. It's really as simple as that. Again, every application's taken on its own. And I'm not saying that deviations are not appropriate, but you make a habit out of giving deviations to every application here, you're not going to have Collier County look like Collier County down the road. That's just the way it is. MR. YOVANOVICH: I need to say something. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: First of all, you know Stock Development and Toll Brothers has never built to the minimum code. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: They always far exceed minimum code. So they're not looking to save a buck by not planting some trees in the rear. What they're trying to do is -- you don't have too many lakes this big in Collier County where you can actually use that lake as a true lake amenity. Joe lives on a lake. He probably paid a premium for the -- I know I did in my first house. I paid a premium for basically a water management pond that I could throw -- I could throw a ball across, and there was multifamily on the other side, and I could see it. But this is a different scenario, and the two developers are saying it makes all the sense in the world to have unobstructed 5.A.b Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: 4-21-2022 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 21,2022 Page 19 of 25 views of this nice, gorgeous lake. It's -- they're not trying to save any money because they far exceed the staff minimum -- I mean, the code minimum when they build. So I don't want there to be any implication that we're doing this to save money, because we far exceed the code minimum, both of those developers. And that's a fact. You can drive around and see it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Go ahead, Mike. I think you want to jump in. MR. BOSI: Yeah. And just -- I want to clarify with the Planning Commission. Remember, a deviation is not an exemption. A deviation is -- is a way that we have -- we've arrived upon for PUDs to be able to satisfy what the intent of whatever the code provision is but in an alternative manner. That's what the deviation process is. It's the wording of the deviation process. It's not an exemption. That's not the intent. The intent is supposed to be for -- to enhance -- to accomplish the same effect. And I would agree that there is merits towards what Mr. Yovanovich is presenting and what Mr. Frantz is presenting, that the 900 to 2,200-foot lake is an enhancement that we would not want to screen. So that's the alternative, I think, that's being presented by the applicant. Just -- I want to provide the clarification. Deviations are not exemptions, but they are how an applicant proposes to accomplish the intent of -- whatever that regulation that they're seeking a deviation from. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Rich. Just curious, the use of that lake, is this a water ski lake like Miromar Lakes or just a -- is it fishing? What's the use? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, there'll be non -- first of all, in the San Marino PUD -- this PUD will have no access to the lake. But when San Marino comes through, it will be nonmotorized, paddleboarding, kayaking. COMMISSIONER FRY: Fishing? MR. YOVANOVICH: Fishing. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. One thing I would like to say -- and I don't know if we're going to have members of the public who speak on this or not, but I believe it's fair for us as a quasi-judicial board to take quasi-judicial notice, if you will, of the high quality of the two developers in question and the track record that they have in this county and elsewhere. This wouldn't necessarily be a resolution we'd reach if one or both of them were unknown quantities. And, also, we have counsel of record for both parties in front of us this morning making the representation that in his current view an agreement is imminent, and these are the -- these are the property owners who together comprise the entirety of the area in question. For those reasons, I believe -- and, again, subject to if there's public comment, that having a solid condition in our -- if we recommend approval, a solid condition that there be an agreement reached between the two developers with respect to buffering along that lake or nearby on those property lines and that that -- I'm going to take it one step further now, that that agreement is reasonably acceptable to staff and the County Attorney. Would that be okay with you? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, first -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Otherwise, we may have to bring it back on consent. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I'm fine with -- I mean, what terms is Heidi and Jeff going to review? I'm going to show them where they've agreed not to put a buffer, and I'm not going to show you what the consideration for that is. It's not the public's business. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I understand, and I'm not asking for that, but -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. I'm happy to share the agreement with them. I'm happy to share. CHAIRMAN FRYER: The County Attorney and Managing Assistant County Attorney and two senior staff people have been here and heard all of this the same as we have, so they know 5.A.b Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: 4-21-2022 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 21,2022 Page 20 of 25 what our concerns are and our desires are, and either -- I would want it to be reasonably satisfactory to them given the expressions of concern, or I'd like to bring it back on consent for us to have a final look at it. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm happy to bring it to Jeff and Heidi to look at so they can see that the parties agreed to no buffer. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Are you excluding Planning staff? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, they can look at it, too, if they want to. I mean, it's -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: The more the merrier. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you very much. Anything else for the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Mr. Youngblood, do we have any members of the public who have registered to speak? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: Mr. Chairman I don't have any registered speakers for either item. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. We have a number of members of the public who are here today. Of course, public comment is also on our agenda at the end. And even if they don't wish to speak, they're always more than welcome to attend. But I'll ask the question anyway: Does anyone who has not yet registered but is physically present wish to be heard on this matter, please raise your hand. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Seeing no hands raised, we will close the public comment portion of this hearing at this time. I assume, Mr. Yovanovich, you've covered all the rebuttal that you feel you need to? MR. YOVANOVICH: I think so. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. So then at this point it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to take this matter under deliberation leading up to a motion. I'll open it up for discussion. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I'm in favor based on what everybody stated based on the time limit that's going to be imposed by staff. So I have no problem with it. We'll hear what others have to say, and then we can make a proposal. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, pending any other comments, I'm ready to make a motion. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRY: I move for approval accepting the deviations with this slight change to Deviation, I believe, No. 5 that the applicant is to present the unified agreement at the County Commission meeting upon presentation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: With respect to buffers. COMMISSIONER FRY: Between Hacienda Lakes and San Marino. MR. YOVANOVICH: And it's Condition No. 5, I think, and it's Deviation 18. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Eighteen. COMMISSIONER FRY: Condition 5, Deviation 18. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Would you accept a friendly amendment? COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That the language of the agreement, the pertinent parts, not the consideration -- that is no business or interest of the public -- but that the substantive language be reviewed by and reasonably acceptable to staff and County Attorney. Would you accept that? COMMISSIONER FRY: Absolutely. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: 4-21-2022 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 21,2022 Page 21 of 25 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I 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 SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously. And that's a vote -- well -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Was that on both items? COMMISSIONER FRY: Yeah. The motion was intended to apply to both items, but I did not state that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Without objection -- and if any single planning commissioner objects, we will consider that action as applying to both. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: My second was based on that assumption that it was for both. COMMISSIONER SHEA: My vote was based on the same assumption. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mine, too. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. So it sounds like unanimously we intended that motion and the vote to apply to both of the PLs. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I do want to thank staff for persevering and at least, again, making sure that we comply with the codes, and that's -- I know that was your intent. MR. BELLOWS: And I appreciate the understanding of the Planning Commission of certain issues, and we try to find a solution prior to coming here, but we came close. But I think at the end, this is a good solution. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Thank you, Petitioner. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That matter is concluded. ***And we don't have any other petitions before us, so we come to old business. Does anyone have any old business to bring before the Planning Commission? If not -- Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm just curious, the members of the public that are here, is there anything that they wanted to address? CHAIRMAN FRYER: We're going to call on them for public comment. Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Just a quick comment. I think I respect the complexity and the challenges of what you do as the staff in reviewing these issues, and I understand that before it comes to us it's gone through a very thorough review. So I would just -- speaking for myself, I welcome whenever you don't agree with something that you bring it up so that we can put it under the light, under the microscope and examine it. But I also, I welcome -- I also welcome editorial judgments from you guys as you present as well even though it's not the official staff position, and I think just because my interest is in evaluating all the different considerations and coming to a fully informed decision. So don't ever hold back, would be my request. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And ditto from me. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. And it's important to know that not everyone on staff agrees with 5.A.b Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: 4-21-2022 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 21,2022 Page 22 of 25 every position we finally end up taking. It's a vigorous debate amongst staff as well how we choose -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. BELLOWS: -- situations. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I understood. And without getting too far into the internal politics of staff, when appropriate and when possible, we'd like to hear both the official position and any divergence, recognizing that it's not the official position of county staff, but at least so that we could be enlightened about what other matters were thought about and advocated for. COMMISSIONER FRY: A great example, I think, was One Naples, and we had Mr. Sabo up there, and he had the staff recommendation, and we kind of pressed him on what his personal opinions were. I just found that extremely helpful in enlightening us into what kind of internal conversations and possible philosophies had come to play in your review of the issues. So thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any further new business? If not, we come to public comment, and this is available for any members of the public who wish to speak on anything that was not on our agenda today, now would be the time. Do we have anybody registered for public comment, Mr. Youngblood? MR. YOUNGBLOOD: I don't have any registered public speakers. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen of the public, does anyone wish to be heard today by the Planning Commission? Yes, ma'am. Would you come up to the microphone and identify yourself. We'd appreciate that. The public is always welcome to attend our meetings. MS. SHAFER: My name is Mary Shafer (phonetic). I live in Azure. And everybody in our development is scared to death that this new development is going to be multi-story buildings, you know, like apartment sort of things. Can I go back and tell them that's not true? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, you're talking about the matter that we just voted on and concluded? MS. SHAFER: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It would have been wonderful to hear from you at public comment time. MS. SHAFER: I was half an hour late because I couldn't find the building, so I just kind of -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I understand. Well, say whatever you wish to say on that, but we have -- we've basically lost jurisdiction of the matter. It's now going over to the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would have to -- based on what's been approved in the past and what's being built now, I mean, you could pretty much make the assumption it's going to be single-family -- MS. SHAFER: Single-family, yeah, I got that from you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- as being built. I mean, that's what the market's dictating, and that's what's selling. MS. SHAFER: Okay, good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, ma'am, very much. Anybody else wish to be heard on anything? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any other members of the public? Yes, ma'am, please rise and approach and give us your name. MS. ASTLING: Good morning. My name is Jennifer. I own property off of Sabal Palm. THE COURT REPORTER: Your last name? MS. ASTLING: It's Astling, A-s-t-l-i-n-g. I live off of the Sabal Palm side. I'm not sure if this is the appropriate place to ask you, but we've been notified -- and I believe it's connected to your RV removal -- that some of the zoning 5.A.b Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: 4-21-2022 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 21,2022 Page 23 of 25 land is being changed from our agricultural exempt that we deal with now to -- over to this more multiuse, multifunction. I know that we discussed the north end today, but it's being presented to us on the opposite side of this development. I'm trying to figure out where we determine whether the zoning is being changed to this and how it affects those of us who have been property owners for 30-plus years over there. CHAIRMAN FRYER: The property -- the parcel, or the part of the parcel in question, is a triangle that's in the northeast corner, and it had previously been zoned RV, and it's now going to be part of the MPUD. MS. ASTLING: Okay. So with the zoning change in that area, though, how will that cross over to those of us who have been residents and own property that is agriculture exempt on the opposite side of this project? CHAIRMAN FRYER: On which side do you mean by "the opposite side"? MS. ASTLING: We're on the Sabal Palms side of this project. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, oh, okay. Well, you're south then. MS. ASTLING: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: This is really not going to be proximate to you at all. MS. ASTLING: Okay. So any changes in your zoning on the north side should not, then, by proxy, change our zoning on our side or at least give you, someone, a developer, a leg to change that? Because now where we were, we have preserve behind us, and we're being told, no, we're going to put multifamily homes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm going to turn to staff, because there was one item that we voted on and approved. I don't remember if it was in a deviation or where, but something that was made applicable to the entire MPUD, and I think it had to do with sidelines. MR. BOSI: That was the reduction of six feet to five feet -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: To five. MR. BOSI: -- regarding side setbacks. That would have nothing in terms of changing zoning uses or anything of that. That's just a development standard. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. But that would -- that would apply to south of Sabal Bay? MR. BOSI: Well, that would apply to anything within the MPUD, within the Hacienda Lakes PUD. CHAIRMAN FRYER: But, otherwise, I don't think it has any application at all. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You own -- you're on Sabal Palm Road. It's -- you own your property? MS. ASTLING: Yes, sir. We own five-and-a-half acres out there, but we have the developers with their signs now that all of our preserve land behind it has now been rezoned as part of this. This is what we were presented. That's, I think, the reason why even Azure families are here is because we're hearing something different over there than what I believe we were just discussing. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Well, let's get that clarified, because I didn't think there was any change in the preserves. MR. BOSI: There was no -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No change. MR. BOSI: -- no change in this preserve. MS. ASTLING: Okay. Thank you for the clarification. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You bet. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And it will not impact your property. This rezoning has nothing to do with your property, but you're looking at what now is preserve -- MS. ASTLING: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- that's not on your property but is part of this, and from our understanding, there's no change in the preserve. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: 4-21-2022 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 21,2022 Page 24 of 25 MS. ASTLING: Okay, yes, because our property does back up to, like, the Picayune square and all of that back there, which we have developers coming saying that that's been changed. So that was the point of myself being here, because we have agriculture exempt, and on your docket today it says that you're removing RV and agricultural zoning in that area so we're concerned that that's going to then apply over to the opposite side of this development. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I don't think any agriculture had been changed at all. It's just RV, and it's a triangle. MS. ASTLING: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: A little triangle. MS. ASTLING: Okay. Thank you for the clarification then. Thank you so much. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much for being here, and I hope that everyone else who came in with those concerns, those concerns have now been allayed. And, certainly, you were more than welcome to speak at public comment. We would have been more than welcome (sic) to hear from you, well, before we voted on the matter. So thank you. All right. Anything else from anyone before we adjourn if not, then -- Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No, I turned it off. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, you turned it off. Okay. I'm sorry. If not, we're adjourned. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thank you. ******* 5.A.b Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: 4-21-2022 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) April 21,2022 Page 25 of 25 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:15 a.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 L. LEWIS, RPR, FPR-C, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. 5.A.b Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: 4-21-2022 CCPC Minutes Formatted (22026 : Meeting Minutes) 05/19/2022 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.1 Item Summary: PL20210003228-Good Turn Center PUDA- An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 2009-53 the Good Turn Center Mixed Use Planned Unit Development by increasing the zoned height from 45 feet to 55 feet and actual height from 55 feet to 65 feet, and providing an effective date. The subject property, consisting of 9.5+/- acres, is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard, north of Rattlesnake Hammock Road, in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Gabriela Castro, AICP, Principal Planner] Meeting Date: 05/19/2022 Prepared by: Title: Principal Planner – Zoning Name: Gabriela Castro 04/25/2022 11:46 AM Submitted by: Title: – Zoning Name: Mike Bosi 04/25/2022 11:46 AM Approved By: Review: Zoning Ray Bellows Additional Reviewer Completed 04/26/2022 11:23 AM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 04/27/2022 4:47 PM Planning Commission Diane Lynch Review item Completed 04/29/2022 5:32 PM Zoning Mike Bosi Zoning Director Review Completed 05/03/2022 8:24 AM Growth Management Department Mike Bosi GMD Deputy Dept Head Completed 05/03/2022 8:30 AM Planning Commission Ray Bellows Meeting Pending 05/19/2022 9:00 AM 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 96 GOOD TURN CENTER MPUD, PUDA-PL20210003228 April 25, 2022 Page 1 of 12 STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION – ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT - PLANNING & REGULATION HEARING DATE: May 19, 2022 SUBJECT: PUDA-PL20210003228 GOOD TURN CENTER MIXED-USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MPUD) ______________________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT: AGENT: Sparrow Acquisitions, LLC D. Wayne Arnold, AICP 2500 Bee Caves Road Q. Grady Minor and Associates Building 1, Suite 380 3800 Via Del Rey Austin, TX 78746 Bonita Springs, FL 34134 PROPERTY OWNER: Collier Rattlesnake LLC 801 Anchor Rode Drive Unit 206 Naples, FL 34103 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider amending Ordinance Number 2009-53, Good Turn Center Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD), as amended, by increasing the zoned height from 45 feet to 55 feet and actual height from 55 feet to 65 feet. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard north of Rattlesnake Hammond Road consisting of 9.5± acres in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Please see the Location Map on page 2 of this Staff Report.) 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: STAFF REPORT Good turn (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) GOOD TURN CENTER MPUD, PUDA-PL20210003228 April 25, 2022 Page 2 of 12 9.A.1.aPacket Pg. 98Attachment: STAFF REPORT Good turn (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) GOOD TURN CENTER MPUD, PUDA-PL20210003228 April 25, 2022 Page 3 of 12 9.A.1.aPacket Pg. 99Attachment: STAFF REPORT Good turn (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) GOOD TURN CENTER MPUD, PUDA-PL20210003228 April 25, 2022 Page 4 of 12 PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The Good Turn Center Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) was originally approved in Ordinance Number 09-53 on October 13, 2009. The property site has been undeveloped since then. One of the permitted uses on the site is up to 200 units of group housing. The purchase contractor is proposing to build group housing units. The petitioner is proposing to amend the development standards for Tract C and CF to remove the limitation on the number of stories and to raise the zoned and actual height. The petitioner is proposing the following changes with this amendment: • Remove the maximum number of stories allowed; • Revise the maximum zoned height to 55 feet and maximum actual height to 65 feet; and • Add PUD Monitoring notes. The Master Plan has been revised to show the building height. For further information, see Attachment A-Proposed PUD Ordinance. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Currently undeveloped General Commercial (C-4) zoned property with a proposed MPUD that is currently under review East: Currently undeveloped Agricultural (A) zoned property with a proposed residential planned unit development (RPUD) that is currently under review South: Currently undeveloped land with a Hammock Park MPUD zoning designation West: SFWMD 951 Canal, Collier Boulevard, a 6-lane divided roadway, and a developed commercial strip shopping center with a zoning designation of Naples Lakes Country Club PUD 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: STAFF REPORT Good turn (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) GOOD TURN CENTER MPUD, PUDA-PL20210003228 April 25, 2022 Page 5 of 12 AERIAL PHOTO GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Comprehensive Planning staff has reviewed the proposed PUD Amendment. and has found it consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. The subject site is designated Urban, Urban Mixed-Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict. The site is zoned Good Turn Center MPUD. Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff reviewed the application and found this project consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). There is no proposed increase in the number of dwelling units and no additional traffic generation for this development. Operational impacts will be addressed at the time of the next development order (SDP, SDPA, or Plat), at which time a 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 SUBJECT PROPERTY 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: STAFF REPORT Good turn (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) GOOD TURN CENTER MPUD, PUDA-PL20210003228 April 25, 2022 Page 6 of 12 but not limited to any plats and or site development plans, or amendments are sought. Therefore, the subject amendment can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental Planning staff found this project to be consistent with the CCME. The proposed changes do not affect any of the environmental requirements of the GMP. GMP Conclusion: The subject PUD amendment petition may be deemed consistent with the FLUE of the GMP. 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) Subsection 10.02.13 B.5., Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the “PUD Findings”), and Subsection 10.02.08 F., Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as “Rezone Findings”), which establish the legal basis to support the CCPC’s recommendation. The CCPC uses 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 “Zoning and Land Development Review Analysis.” In addition, staff offers the following analysis: Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the PUD petition to address environmental concerns. The proposed PUD changes will not affect any of the environmental requirements of the PUD document (Ordinance 09-53). A minimum of .42 acres of native vegetation will be placed under preservation. The property contains an active bald eagle’s nest which will require a bald eagle management plan as part of the review for the site development plan and/or plat. This project does require Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, as this project does meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. Specifically, the project is within the 330- and 660-foot bald eagle nest protection zones. Environmental Services staff recommends approval of the proposed petition. Transportation Review: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition for compliance with the GMP and the LDC and recommends approval. Utilities Review: The height change does not impact utilities for this project. Landscape Review: The change in height does not change the required landscape buffer. The buffers shown on the master plan are consistent with the LDC. 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: STAFF REPORT Good turn (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) GOOD TURN CENTER MPUD, PUDA-PL20210003228 April 25, 2022 Page 7 of 12 Zoning and Land Development Review: Good Turn Center PUD was created in 2009 and was rezoned from Agricultural at that time. Back in 2009, this area east of Collier Boulevard was undeveloped and has remained undeveloped. Many projects in this area are in the process of being rezoned or have recently been rezoned. The original rezone established that this PUD can either be developed with 100,000 commercial square feet or 200 group housing units. The contract purchaser would like to develop up to 200 group housing units and their prototype is a four-story design. The applicant wishes to eliminate the maximum number of stories allowed in the PUD and increase the maximum zoned height and actual height by ten feet. The request for the new height is within range of the recently approved zoning petitions in the area. Hammock Park MPUD, directly south of the subject parcel, allows a full range of commercial activities, has a maximum zoned height of 50 feet and a maximum actual height of 60 feet. To the east, the property is currently zoned agricultural and is currently requesting a zoning action to allow multiple types of residential housing, with a proposed zoned maximum height of 45 feet and a maximum actual height of 55 feet. To the north, the property is currently zoned C-4, which allows a wide range of commercial and group housing, and has a maximum zoned height of 75 feet. The property to the north also is requesting a proposed zoning change which would allow a maximum zoned height of 50 feet and a maximum actual height of 57 feet. To the east, the property is the commercial/office component of Naples Lakes Country Club PUD which has a maximum zoned height of 50 feet and a maximum actual height of 75 feet. Zoning staff finds the proposed additional heights to be compatible with the building heights in the surrounding area. REZONE FINDINGS: Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in LDC Subsection 10.02.13 B.5., Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the “PUD Findings”), and Subsection 10.02.08 F., Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as “Rezone Findings”), which establish the legal bases to support the CCPC’s recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the 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 “Zoning and Land Development Review Analysis.” In addition, staff offers the following analysis: 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future land use map, and the elements of the GMP. The Comprehensive Planning staff has indicated that the proposed PUD Amendment is consistent with all applicable elements of the FLUE of the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern. 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: STAFF REPORT Good turn (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) GOOD TURN CENTER MPUD, PUDA-PL20210003228 April 25, 2022 Page 8 of 12 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 undeveloped with the potential to be developed with commercial and residential uses. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. At the time the subject property was rezoned to an MPUD, it was deemed to be of sufficient size and did not result in an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The proposed PUD Amendment does not change this finding and there is no change in the boundary. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The district boundaries are logically drawn as discussed in Items 2 and 3. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment 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 increase the maximum zoned and actual height. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed PUD Amendment can be deemed consistent with the County’s land-use policies. Development in compliance with the proposed PUD Amendment should not adversely impact living conditions in the area. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construct ion phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. The roadway infrastructure will continue to have adequate capacity to serve the proposed project at this time, i.e., GMP consistent at the time of rezoning as evaluated as part of the GMP Transportation Element consistency review. Operational impacts will be addressed at the time of each development order (SDP or Plat). Additionally, the project’s development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The proposed PUD Amendment will not create a drainage problem. Furthermore, the project is subject to the requirements of Collier County and the South Florida Water Management District. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: STAFF REPORT Good turn (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) GOOD TURN CENTER MPUD, PUDA-PL20210003228 April 25, 2022 Page 9 of 12 It is anticipated that the proposed PUD Amendment 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. Staff is of the opinion this PUD Amendment will not adversely impact property values. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. Properties around this property are mostly undeveloped and are also requesting zoning changes. The basic premise underlying all of the development standards in the Land Development Code is that their sound application, when combined with the site development plan approval process and/or subdivision process, gives reasonable assurance that a change in zoning will not result in deterrence to improvement or development of the 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. The development complies with the GMP, which is a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed amendment does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The subject property could be developed within the parameters of the existing zoning designations; however, the petitioner is seeking this PUD Amendment in compliance with LDC provisions. The proposed amendment meets the intent of the PUD district, and the public interest will be maintained. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed PUD Amendment is 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 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: STAFF REPORT Good turn (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) GOOD TURN CENTER MPUD, PUDA-PL20210003228 April 25, 2022 Page 10 of 12 was reviewed on its 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 site development plan approval process and again later as part of the building permit process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County GMP and as defined and implemented through the Collier County adequate public facilities ordinance. The development will have to meet all applicable criteria outlined in the LDC regarding Adequate Public Facilities. The project must also be consistent with all applicable goals and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities. This petition has been reviewed by County staff that is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the rezoning process, and that staff has concluded that no Level of Service will be adversely impacted. 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 Good Turn Center PUD remains undeveloped in an area that is primarily still largely undeveloped, yet seeking zoning changes for commercial and residential uses. The proposed use was deemed suitable in the previous rezoning in 2009. Utilities are available at the site for the future development proposed by this petition. Therefore, the site is suitable for the proposed development. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: STAFF REPORT Good turn (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) GOOD TURN CENTER MPUD, PUDA-PL20210003228 April 25, 2022 Page 11 of 12 Documents submitted with the application provided satisfactory evidence of unified control. Additionally, the development will be required to gain platting and/or site development plan 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 found this petition consistent with the overall GMP. 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on the location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. The currently approved development, landscaping, and buffering standards were determined to be compatible with the adjacent uses and with the use mixture within the project itself at the time the PUD was approved. Staff believes that this building height amendment will not change the project’s compatibility, both internally and externally, as the height in the area ranges from 45 feet to 75 feet. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The amount of open space set aside for this project meets the minimum requirement of the LDC. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. The roadway infrastructure will continue to be sufficient to serve the proposed project, as noted in the Transportation Element consistency review. Operational impacts will be addressed at the time of each 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. Pursuant to Sec. 134-57(a) of the Collier County Code of Ordinances, the 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 or increased with this request. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The area has adequate supporting infrastructure, including Collier County Water-Sewer District potable water and wastewater mains, to accommodate this project. Furthermore, adequate public facilities requirements will be addressed when development approvals are sought. 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: STAFF REPORT Good turn (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) GOOD TURN CENTER MPUD, PUDA-PL20210003228 April 25, 2022 Page 12 of 12 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. This criterion essentially requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards and deviations proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. The petitioner is not seeking any deviations. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The applicant scheduled a NIM on March 8, 2022, at South Regional Library located at 8065 Lely Cultural Parkway Naples, Florida. There was one in-person attendee and two via zoon. No commitments were made. For further information please see Attachment C-NIM Documents. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office has reviewed the Staff Report for this petition on April 18, 2022. RECOMMENDATION: Planning and Zoning Review staff recommends that the CCPC forward Petition PUDA- PL20210003228, Good Turn Center MPUD to the BCC with a recommendation of approval. Attachments: Attachment A: Proposed PUD Ordinance Attachment B: Ordinance Number 2009-53 Attachment C: NIM Documents Attachment D: Applicant Back Up Materials 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: STAFF REPORT Good turn (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: A Proposed Ordinance (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: A Proposed Ordinance (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: A Proposed Ordinance (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: A Proposed Ordinance (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) 9.A.1.bPacket Pg. 113Attachment: A Proposed Ordinance (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) flr 128293n11 Ii N J1N0 o q I c ORDINANCE NO 09 53 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004 41 AS AMENDED THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A RURAL AGRICULTURAL A ZONING DISTRICT TO A MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MPUD ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS THE GOOD TURN CENTER MPUD TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A MAXIMUM OF 100 000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL LAND USES AND OR A VARIETY OF SKILLED NURSING CARE FACILITY USES WITH A MAXIMUM OF 200 UNITS IN SECTION 14 TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH RANGE 26 EAST COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA CONSISTING OF 9 5 ACRES AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE g n 4 PlI WHEREAS Wayne Arnold AICP of Q Grady Minor Inc and Richard Yovanovich of Coleman Yovanovich Koester P A representing Collier Rattlesnake LLC 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 26 East Collier County Florida is changed from a Rural Agricultural A Zoning District to a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development MPUD Zoning District for the 9 5 acre project to be known as the Good Turn Center MPUD to allow construction of a maximum of 100 000 square feet of commercial land uses and or a variety of skilled nursing care facility uses with a maximum of 200 units in accordance with the MPUD Document attached hereto as Exhibits A through E and incorporated by reference herein 1 of2 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: B Ord 09-53 (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) 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 DUL Y ADOPTED by super majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County Florida this J 3 day of d o btr 2009 ATTEST DWIGHT It RU ole BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER CO TY FLORIDA dBy at y S r1t cJlJ3rIo DO A FIALA Chairman Approved as to form and legal sufficiencyLAolA Ute di Ashton Cicko Assistant County Attorney Attachments Exhibit A Permitted Uses Exhibit B Development Standards Exhibit C Master Plan Exhibit D Legal Description Exhibit E List of Developer Commitments CP 09 CPS 00970 5 f1 1 bfdl rt6t1c e filed wh ltle S Htory of Sta O e dayof Pi tlnd acknowledgement of that l i6 d Y Q Deputy telk 20f2 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: B Ord 09-53 (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) EXHIBIT A FOR GOOD TURN CENTER MPUD PERMITTED USES A maximum of 100 000 sq ft of commercial land uses and up to 200 group housing units shall be permitted 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 Commercial Tract C A Principal Uses 1 Administration of economic programs Groups 9611 Administration of general economic programs 9621 Regulation and administration of transportation programs 9631 Regulation and administration of communications electric gas and other utilities 9641 Regulation of agricultural marketing and commodities 9651 Regulation licensing and inspection of miscellaneous commercial sectors 2 Administration of environmental quality and housing programs Groups 9511 Air and water resource and solid waste management 9512 Land mineral wildlife and forest conservation 9531 Administration of housing programs 9532 Administration of urban planning and community and rural development 3 Administration of human resource programs Groups 9411 Administration of educational programs 9431 Administration of public health programs 9451 Administration of veterans affairs except health and insurance 4 Agricultural services Groups 0781 landscape counseling and planning 5 Amusement and recreation services Groups 7911 Dance studios schools and halls 7991 Physical fitness facilities including tanning salons 7999 Amusement and recreation services not elsewhere classified including only golf driving range judo karate instruction moped motorcycle rental bicycle rental and yoga instruction 6 Apparel and accessory stores Groups 5611 Men s and boys clothing and accessory stores 5621 Women s clothing stores 5632 Women s accessory and specialty stores specifically excluding adult oriented sales or rentals 5641 Children s and infants wear stores 5651 Family clothing stores 5661 Shoe stores 5699 Miscellaneous apparel and accessory stores 7 Automotive dealers and gasoline service stations Exhibits A E Rev 12 lO 13 09 doc Page 1 AR 12773 GTCPUD 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: B Ord 09-53 (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) Groups 5531 Auto and home supply stores 5541 Gasoline service stations 8 Automotive repair services and parking Groups 7514 Passenger car rental 7515 Passenger car leasing 7532 Top body and upholstery repair shops and paint shops 7533 Automotive exhaust system repair shops 7534 Tire retreading and repair shops 7536 Automotive glass replacement shops 7537 Automotive transmission repair shops 7538 General automotive repair shops 7539 Automotive repair shops not elsewhere classified 7542 Carwashes 7549 Automotive services except repair and carwashes 9 Building materials hardware garden supply and mobile home dealers Groups 5211 Lumber and other building materials dealer 5231 Paint glass and wallpaper stores 5251 Hardware stores 5261 Retail nurseries lawn and garden supply stores 10 Business services Groups 7311 Advertising agencies 7313 Radio television and publishers advertising representatives 7319 Advertising not elsewhere classified 7322 Adjustment and collection services 7323 Credit reporting services 7331 Direct mail advertising services 7334 Photocopying and duplicating services 7335 Commercial photography 7336 Commercial art and graphic design 7338 Secretarial and court reporting services 7352 Medical equipment rental and leasing 7371 Computer programming services 7372 Prepackaged software 7373 Computer integrated systems design 7374 Computer processing and data preparation and processing services 7375 Information retrieval services 7376 Computer facilities management services 7377 Computer rental and leasing 7378 Computer maintenance and repair 7379 Computer related services not elsewhere classified 7383 News syndicates 11 Membership organizations Group 8661 Religious organizations 12 Depository institutions Groups 6011 Federal reserve banks 6019 Central reserve depository institutions not elsewhere classified 6021 National commercial banks 6022 State commercial banks 6029 Commercial banks not elsewhere classified 6035 Savings institutions federally chartered Exhibits A E Rev 12 lO 13 09 doc Page 2 AR 12773 GTCPUD 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: B Ord 09-53 (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) 6036 Savings institutions not federally chartered 6061 Credit unions federally chartered 6062 Credit unions not federally chartered 6081 Branches and agencies of foreign banks 6082 Foreign trade and international banking institutions 6091 Non deposit trust facilities 13 Eating and drinking places Groups 5812 Eating places including indoor and outdoor seating with no amplified music or televisions 14 Educational services Groups 8243 Data processing schools 8244 Business and secretarial schools 8249 Vocational schools not elsewhere classified 8299 Schools and educational services not elsewhere classified 15 Engineering accounting research management and related services Groups 8711 Engineering services 8712 Architectural services 8713 Surveying services 8721 Accounting auditing and bookkeeping services 8731 Commercial physical and biological research 8732 Commercial economic sociological and educational research 8733 Noncommercial research organizations 8734 Testing laboratories 8741 Management services 8742 Management consulting services 8743 Public relations services 8748 Business consulting services not elsewhere classified 16 Essential services Section 2 01 03 of the LDC 17 Executive legislative and general government except finance Groups 9111 Executive offices 9121 Legislative bodies 9131 Executive and legislative offices combined 9199 General government not elsewhere classified 18 Food Stores Groups 5411 Grocery stores 5421 Meat and fish seafood markets including freezer provisioners 5431 Fruit and vegetable markets 5441 Candy nut and confectionery stores 5451 Dairy products stores 5461 Retail bakeries 5499 Miscellaneous food stores 19 General merchandise stores Groups 5311 Department stores 5399 Miscellaneous general merchandise stores 20 Health services Groups 8011 Offices and clinics of doctors of medicine 8021 Offices and clinics of dentists 8031 Offices and clinics of doctors of osteopathy Exhibits A E Rev 12 10 13 09 doc Page 3 AR 12773 GTCPUD 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: B Ord 09-53 (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) 8041 Offices and clinics of chiropractors 8042 Offices and clinics of optometrists 8043 Offices and clinics of podiatrists 8049 Offices and clinics of health practitioners not elsewhere classified 8071 Medical laboratories 8072 Dental laboratories 8082 Home health care services 8092 Kidney dialysis centers 21 Holding and other Investment offices Groups 6712 Offices of bank holding companies 6719 Offices of holding companies not elsewhere classified 6722 Management investment offices open end 6726 Unit investment trusts face amount certificate offices and closed end management investment offices 6732 Educational religious and charitable trusts 6733 Trusts except educational religious and charitable 6792 Oil royalty traders 6794 Patent owners and lessors 6798 Real estate investment trusts 6799 Investors not elsewhere classified 22 Home furniture furnishings and equipment stores Groups 5712 Furniture stores 5713 Floor covering stores 5714 Drapery curtain and upholstery stores 5722 Household appliance stores 5731 Radio television and consumer electronics stores 5734 Computer and computer software stores 5735 Record and prerecorded tape stores specifically excluding adult oriented sales or rentals 5736 Musical instrument stores 23 Insurance agents brokers and service Group 6411 Insurance agents brokers and service 24 Insurance carriers Groups 6311 Life insurance 6321 Accident and health insurance 6324 Hospital and medical service plans 6331 Fire marine and casualty insurance 6351 Surety insurance 6361 Title insurance 25 Justice public order and safety Groups 9211 Courts 9221 Police protection 9222 Legal counsel and prosecution 9224 Fire protection 9229 Public order and safety not elsewhere classified 26 Legal services Group 8111 27 Membership organizations Groups 8611 Business associations Exhibits A E Rev 12 IO 13 09 doc Page 4 AR 12773 GTCPUD 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: B Ord 09-53 (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) 8621 Professional membership organizations 8631 Labor unions and similar labor organizations 8641 Civic social and fraternal associations 8651 Political Organizations 28 Miscellaneous retail Groups 5912 Drug stores and proprietary stores 5921 Liquor stores 5932 Used merchandise stores including only antique stores 5941 Sporting goods stores and bicycle shops 5942 Book Stores excluding adult oriented stores 5943 Stationery Stores 5944 Jewelry Stores 5945 Hobby toy and game shops 5946 Camera and photographic supply stores 5947 Gift novelty and souvenir shops 5948 Luggage and leather goods stores 5949 Sewing needlework and piece goods stores 5961 Catalog and mail order houses 5962 Automatic merchandising machine operators 5963 Direct selling establishments 5992 Florists 5993 Tobacco stores and stands 5994 News dealers and newsstands 5995 Optical goods stores 5999 Miscellaneous retail stores not elsewhere classified 29 Miscellaneous services Group 8999 Services not elsewhere classified 30 Non depository credit institutions Groups 6162 Mortgage bankers and loan correspondents 6163 Loan brokers 31 Personal services Groups 7212 Garment pressing and agents for laundries and drycleaners 7221 Photographic studios portrait 7231 Beauty shops 7241 Barber shops 7291 Tax return preparation services 32 Public finance taxation and monetary policy Group 9311 33 Real estate Groups 6531 Real estate agents and managers 6541 Title abstract offices 6552 Land subdividers and developers except cemeteries 34 Security and commodity brokers dealers exchanges and services Groups 6211 Security brokers dealers and flotation companies 6221 Commodity contracts brokers and dealers 6231 Security and commodity exchanges 6282 I nvestment advice 6289 Services allied with the exchange of securities or commodities not elsewhere classified Exhibits A E Rev 12 10 13 09 doc Page 5 AR 12773 GTCPUD 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: B Ord 09-53 (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) 35 Social services Groups 8331 Job training and vocational rehabilitation services 8351 Child day care services 8399 Social services not elsewhere classified 36 Veterinarian service Group 0742 37 Video tape rental Group 7841 excluding adult oriented sales B Accessory Uses Structures 1 Signs water management essential services covered parking nature trails indoor and outdoor recreational facilities Signage shall be permitted in accordance with the standards of the Land Development Code LDC 2 Other accessory uses and structures customarily permitted for a principal use C Prohibited Uses 1 Residential care Group 8361 including soup kitchens and homeless shelters alcohol and drug rehabilitation centers homes for emotionally disturbed juvenile correction homes orphanages and self help group homes 2 Hospitals Groups 8063 Psychiatric hospitals 8069 Specialty hospitals except psychiatric 8093 Specialty outpatient facilities not elsewhere classified Community Facility Tract CF A Principal Uses 1 Health services Skilled nursing care facilities Assisted living facilities independent living facilities for persons over age 55 continuing care retirement communities and nursing homes maximum FAR of 0 6 not to exceed 200 units B Accessory Uses Structures 1 Signs water management essential services covered parking nature trails indoor and outdoor recreational facilities Signage shall be permitted in accordance with the standards of the Land Development Code LDC 2 Other accessory uses and structures customarily permitted for a principal use 3 Beauty and barber shops resident dining including serving of alcohol and other personal services related to assisted living facilities independent living facilities for persons over age 55 continuing care retirement communities and nursing homes The uses are limited to use by residents and their guests Exhibits A E Rev 12 lO 13 09 doc Page 6 AR 12773 GTCPUD 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: B Ord 09-53 (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) C Operational Characteristics The developer of the independent living units and retirement community its successors or assigns shall provide the following services and or be subject to the following operational standards 1 The facility shall be for residents 55 years of age and older 2 There shall be on site dining for the residents 3 Group transportation services shall be provided for residents for the purposes of grocery and other types of shopping Individual transportation services shall be coordinated for the residents individualized needs including but not limited to medical office visits 4 There shall be an on site manager activities coordinator to assist residents with their individual needs The manager coordinator shall also be responsible for arranging trips to off site events as well as planning for lectures movies music and other entertainment for the residents at the on site clubhouse 5 A wellness center shall be provided on site Exercise and other fitness programs shall be provided for the residents 6 Each unit shall be equipped with devices provided to notify emergency service providers in the event of a medical or other emergency 7 For independent living units each unit shall be designed so that a resident is able to age in place For example kitchens may be easily retrofitted to lower the sink to accommodate a wheelchair bound resident or bathrooms may be retrofitted to add grab bars D Prohibited Uses 1 Residential care Group 8361 including soup kitchens and homeless shelters alcohol and drug rehabilitation centers homes for emotionally disturbed juvenile correction homes orphanages and self help group homes 2 Hospitals Groups 8063 Psychiatric hospitals 8069 Specialty hospitals except psychiatric 8093 Specialty outpatient facilities not elsewhere classified Preserve Tract A Principal Uses 1 Passive recreation and walking trails Exhibits A E Rev 12 IO 13 09 doc Page 7 AR 12773 GTCPUD 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: B Ord 09-53 (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) EXHIBIT B FOR GOOD TURN CENTER MPUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Table I below sets forth the development standards for land uses within the MPUD Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the Land Development Code in effect as of the date of approval of the Site Development Plan SDP or Subdivision plat TABLE I DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR MIXED USE DISTRICT C TRACT CF TRACT PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES MINIMUM LOT AREA 5 000 square feet 10 000 square feet MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 75 Ft 100 Ft MINIMUM SETBACKS External Front 25 Ft 25 Ft Side 25 Ft 25 Ft Rear 40 Ft 40 Ft MINIMUM SETBACKS Internal Internal Drives Right of 10Ft 10Ft way Property Lines Preserve 25 Ft 25 Ft MIN DISTANCE BETWEEN 20 Ft or sum of Building heights 20 Ft or sum of Building STRUCTURES heights MAXIMUM HEIGHT Zoned Height 3 stories over parking Zoned Height 3 stories over not to exceed 45 Ft parking not to exceed 45 Ft Actual Height 3 stories over parking Actual Height 3 stories over not to exceed 55 ft oarkinc not to exceed 55 ft MAX GROSS LEASABLE AREA 100 000 Sq Ft FAR 0 6 ACCESSORY USES MINIMUM SETBACKS External Front 25 Ft 25 Ft Side 15 Ft 15 Ft Rear 15 Ft 15 Ft MINIMUM SETBACKS Internal Internal Drives Right of OFt OFt way Property Lines Preserve 10Ft 10Ft MIN DISTANCE BETWEEN S P S S P S STRUCTURES MAXIMUM HEIGHT 25 Ft 25 Ft whichever is greater Applies to commercial and office uses Any use subject to an FAR will be subject to the square feet permitted under that FAR S P S Same as Principal Structures Exhibits A E Rev 12 10 13 09 doc Page 8 AR 12773 GTCPUD 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: B Ord 09-53 (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) UJHIZ0ClUJcClClz0NUJSV OO NliiiUJffooIt3 adUJuulLIIIJwJbUJ0co co0NNUJ I Z I wOw31 5 wZIiDwltI1wwo0oenZZuCi00OUJt0zenUJOIUJwZzIIlWIfofzIUJUJlwOoxUJenzZIIl0wO0flten1UJolIZ10IQenenenZ8UJ0enSwI0UJOJfzf0001WenClClZ 2 I oUJ z z g I Z Zo o N UJ I UJoW en OU UC l 1I 1t Olt II 11 0 ti ZwttUJ ili t U UWl 1 Nccueu I g QlW KIDOIIlILOOOO zeIVIfticI3ulemIxciHiiiijfJlHijiJ0Iifi0 ll 6 C IIz 2 I oenaenI 8 g8 o W N i I ia 0 i1i I lz ciwCl C J ijj3itooClat ZUJoEJ 5 fi IIlOCl ff I ff rH j I 8 j @ilI I IIJ a i I w a 1g11t i ull i co z ijz zwOenN i Ii Z iietu zot UJ Z z 1 0 zO I ffi ffi u u i I L J J ll3l lnB 0 3dAl 301M O B v 9 Z DO ZB v 7I1NIIJ ON iS X3 S Z OD N 11M 10 iHO I iii 0JIII 37nOB l3770 J ffi d 5 0 lrffi oo zoo Wen ij i 2 AIIM JO l IJ IIM JO l IJ9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 124Attachment: B Ord 09-53 (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) EXHIBIT D FOR GOOD TURN CENTER MPUD LEGAL DESCRIPTION COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 14 TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH RANGE 26 EAST COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA THENCE RUN NORTH 00032 56 EAST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 14 FOR A DISTANCE OF 669 64 FEET THENCE RUN NORTH 8r18 49 EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 100 16 FEET TO THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF COUNTY ROAD 951 SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED THENCE RUN NORTH 00032 56 EAST ALONG SAID EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE FOR A DISTANCE OF 334 85 FEET THENCE RUN NORTH 8r17 55 EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 1 237 58 FEET THENCE RUN SOUTH 00031 41 WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 335 16 FEET THENCE RUN SOUTH 8r18 49 WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 1 237 68 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING CONTAINING 9 503 ACRES MORE OR LESS Exhibits A E Rev 12 lO 13 09 doc Page 10 AR 12773 GTCPUD 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: B Ord 09-53 (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) EXHIBIT E FOR GOOD TURN CENTER MPUD LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS Regulations for development of the Good Turn Center MPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this MPUD Document and applicable sections of the LDC and Growth ManagementPlanGMPineffectatthetimeofissuanceofanydevelopmentordertowhichsaidregulationsrelateWherethisMPUDOrdinancedoesnotprovidedevelopmentstandardsthentheprovisionsofthespecificsectionsoftheLDCthatareotherwiseapplicableshallapply 1 TRANSPORTATION A The owner agrees to contribute its fair share toward the following intersections with planned improvements that are within the developments significant impacts a Rattlesnake Hammock at Collier Boulevard b Collier Boulevard at Davis Blvd c Rattlesnake Hammock at Grand Lely Drive d Rattlesnake Hammock at PollyAvenueAllfairsharepaymentsshallbecompletedpriortotheissuanceofthefirst certificate of occupancy B The Good Turn Center MPUD shall share access to CR 951 with the Hammock Park Commerce Centre PUD C Any combination of uses listed in Exhibit A of this document may be proposed within this development but shall be limited to a maximum combined weekday p m peakhourtripgenerationof626totalprojecttripsupto478netnewexternaltrips 2 PLANNING A The Good Turn Center MPUD will have an integrated and common buildingarchitecturalstyleWheremultiplebuildingsareconstructedwithintheMPUDall buildings shall be constructed using like exterior building materials and color palate B The developer its successors or assignee shall provide to any potential resident a disclosure statement with respect to the noise that is associated with the SwampBuggyRaceslocatedat8250CollierBoulevardNaplesFLandthelocationofthis CPUD to that establishment The statement must be presented to the potential buyer prior to entering into any sales contract Exhibits A E Rev 12 10 13 09 doc Page 11 AR 12773 GTCPUD I I iJ 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: B Ord 09-53 (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) 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 2009 53 Which was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on the 13th day of October 2009 during Regular Session WITNESS my hand and the official seal of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County Florida this 16th day of October 2009 DWIGHT E BROCK Clerk of Courts nfA rk Ex officio to B tG Ot 2 County commlS r jl t@t JLTeresaPolasW l Deputy Clerk t 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: B Ord 09-53 (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) PL20210003228_Good Turn MPUD March 8 2022 NIM Transcript Page 1 of 5 Wayne Arnold: All right. Good evening, I’m Wayne Arnold with Grady Minor and Associates. This is Sharon Umpenhour, also with GradyMinor, and we’re here to conduct the neighborhood information meeting for Good Turn Center. We’re making a minor change to that project. In the audience is Gabriela Castro, she’s with Collier County government and is working on this application from the county. So, we’re here for a required neighborhood information meeting. The county makes us hold a informational meeting before we can proceed to a planning commission and board county commissioner hearing. So, we’re here because we’re making a change to the Good Turn Center development standards. The project permit is approved for 45’ height limit and three stories. We’re asking to remove the number of stories and establish a zone and an actual height, which is the method the county currently uses to establish heights. And I’ll go through that a little bit more in a minute. So, on the screen I have the location exhibit and you can see highlighted on the right-hand side of the screen is in yellow labeled Good Turn Center is the subject property. [00:01:02] So, it’s on the east side of Collier Blvd just north of Rattlesnake Hammock Road. It’s in the Activity Center and allows for a whole host of commercial uses as well as the Senior housing use over here to change the development standard for tonight. Um, you can see to the west is your neighborhood center closer where you reside and then to our north and south nothing’s been developed yet, but part of it’s part of the Hacienda Lakes project and it’s going to developed for a variety of housing. Um, the First Assembly Ministries property was recently acquired by them as well and it’s going to be redeveloped. So, we’re here on a vacant leased property. We rezoned this originally back in 2009 and included the 200 units of senior housing. We didn’t have an end user, today we do. Sparrow Properties that are looking to develop it, and their prototype is a four story senior housing product. [00:02:00] So, this is the current masterplan for the site. You can see it’s just labeled C and CF. That stands for commercial and community facility, which is the senior housing portion of this. It’s allowed throughout the site. There’s a small wetland on the center of the site that we’re working around. The revised masterplan really doesn’t change other than we added the building height limitation of 45 zone height, 55’ actual height on the masterplan itself. 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: C NIM Documents (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) PL20210003228_Good Turn MPUD March 8 2022 NIM Transcript Page 2 of 5 This is the development table that’s in the existing document today. You can see I’ve highlighted in yellow; it sets the zone height three stories over parking not to exceed 45’ with an actual height of three stories over parking not to exceed 55’. We’re asking to modify that to strike the references to three stories over parking not to exceed 45’ and replacing that with a maximum height of 55’ for zone and an actual height of 65’. [00:03:07] Which would allow Sparrow to develop a four-story product. This is an example of their conceptual architecture and building elevation for the front of the building. And you can see that that is a four-story product, and it features a porte cochere and surface parking that’s visible in – in that image. And you can see to the rear of the image that there’s also, it’s gonna be shaped like a – a U, to take advantage of the one wetland area that needs to be retained. It's a little in more of a U-shape around that wetland area. In a nutshell that’s really the simplicity of our change. We don’t have a hearing date yet, but if you received notice for this meeting, you will receive a notice for the planning commission public hearing once it’s scheduled. You’ll also see the public hearing signs that you’ve commonly seen around town. The four by eight sheets of plywood with public hearing notice information on them. [00:04:03] Those will be posted on the site prior to the planning commission hearing. And then of course that will be followed by the board of county commissioners public hearing. Roger Lawson: [inaudible] [00:04:10] Ingress and egress would be on 951. Wayne Arnold: Ingress and egress is only on Collier Blvd and it’s going to through the shared access bridge that’s going to be developed on the property to the south. There – there’s a bridge that will be established there and we’ll be accessing the property for the joint shared bridge. We have a couple of zoom participants. Anybody on zoom have a question? You can unmute and feel free to ask that. Anything, Sharon? No? Roger Lawson: And what we gonna attract further south of this. Um, do you know what that is? Wayne Arnold: I don’t know exactly. I know it was approved as a mixed-use project that will include some commercial and some residential, but I don’t know anything about it. Specifically, we’re not working on it. 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: C NIM Documents (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) PL20210003228_Good Turn MPUD March 8 2022 NIM Transcript Page 3 of 5 [00:05:01] But this parcel of about 9.5 acres, parcels immediately to the north are also zoned commercial. Roger Lawson: And the board’s way, they’re going to have, what, 200 or 300 townhomes in that area as I – I understand that they… Wayne Arnold: Yeah, I’m not certain on a number of units that they’re looking at. Roger Lawson: I think it’s 300 as I recall. Wayne Arnold: But yes, the Lord’s Way is shown to the north. It’s under development with several homes and then a parking complex up there as well. And then, farther to the east, it’s all part of Hacienda Lakes and northern swamp buggy would either be more [inaudible – crosstalk] [00:05:43]. Roger Lawson: I’m talking about going west over in the vacant areas all supposed to be townhomes. Wayne Arnold: Oh, okay. That I’m not certain of, but this project would be 200 senior housing units that we’re talking about changing the heights for. Roger Lawson: Two hundred, sir? Wayne Arnold: Yes, a maximum of 200, I should say. [00:06:01] Anybody on zoom wanna ask a question yet? Do you have any other questions, comments? You got a copy of the presentation. A lot more information is available – [Crosstalk] Roger Lawson: Appreciate that. Wayne Arnold: – on our website, and I’ll go back to the last slide. It’s got some contact information for Sharon; it’s got Gabriela’s information on there as well. Is there any way we can take the conclusion slide off the, out of the middle of the screen? Just so we can share contact info. But yeah, if you have any other questions, I mean, this is, in circulating through the process I’m assuming we’ll probably have a public hearing on this in the next maybe next six weeks if we’re fortunate. I don’t know, Gabby, do you think… Gabriela Castro: I know there’s stuff in April, but I don’t know if it’s full yet, so. 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: C NIM Documents (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) PL20210003228_Good Turn MPUD March 8 2022 NIM Transcript Page 4 of 5 Wayne Arnold: Okay. Gabriela Castro: And I don’t what the deadline would be. Wayne Arnold: Right, I know. Gabriela Castro: What it corresponds with… Wayne Arnold: Could be April or May timeframe. Gabriela Castro: Yeah. Wayne Arnold: But anyway, I’m happy to answer any questions if you think of something after you leave here tonight, just feel free to give Sharon or me a call and we’ll be happy to get you– [00:07:01] Sharon Umpenhour: I have a question on zoom. Wayne Arnold: Okay. Sharon Umpenhour: Is the senior housing development the only housing that is scheduled to be on this property? Wayne Arnold: Yes, it’s the only residential that’s allowed on the property. It either allows commercial or community facility uses, and community facility uses include things like senior housing. Roger Lawson: Is there an income limitation on, or is there any – Wayne Arnold: No, there’s no income limitation. These are just market rate senior housing. Anything else before we adjourn? Roger Lawson: You made it very easy. Wayne Arnold: Thanks for taking time to come out. Like I said, feel free, you know how to reach us so, feel free to do so. Roger Lawson: Absolutely. Wayne Arnold: All right. If not, we’re gonna adjourn. Sharon, anything else? Sharon Umpenhour: I just asked if they have any other questions on zoom. 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: C NIM Documents (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) PL20210003228_Good Turn MPUD March 8 2022 NIM Transcript Page 5 of 5 Wayne Arnold: Okay. [00:08:00] Sharon: And I’m not seeing any. Wayne Arnold: Okay, well with that, meeting is adjourned. Thanks everybody for participating. Roger Lawson: Thank you so much. [End of Audio] Duration: 9 minutes 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: C NIM Documents (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) www.gradyminor.com/Planning PETITION:PL20210003228 –GOOD TURN CENTER MPUD AMENDMENT March 8, 2022 Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) Project information and a copy of this presentation can be found on our website: 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: C NIM Documents (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) PROJECT TEAM: •Sparrow Acquisitions, LLC–Applicant •D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, Professional Planner –Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. •Michael J. Delate, P.E., Professional Engineer –Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. *Please note, all information provided is subject to change until final approval by the governing authority. INTRODUCTION 2 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: C NIM Documents (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) LOCATION MAP 3 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: C NIM Documents (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) Current Zoning:Good Turn Center MPUD Proposed Zoning:Good Turn Center MPUD Project Acreage:9.5+/- Proposed Request: Modify Exhibit C,Master Plan and Table I,Development Standards,by removing “3 stories over parking not to exceed”reference listed under “Maximum Height”and increase the existing zoned height of 45 feet to 55 feet and actual height of 55 feet to 65 feet. PROJECT INFORMATION 4 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: C NIM Documents (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) APPROVED MASTER PLAN 5 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: C NIM Documents (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) PROPOSED MASTER PLAN 6 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: C NIM Documents (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) APPROVED TABLE I 7 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: C NIM Documents (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) PROPOSED TABLE I 8 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: C NIM Documents (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) CONCEPTUAL RENDERING 9 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: C NIM Documents (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) CONCLUSION Documents and information can be found online: •Gradyminor.com/Planning •Collier County GMD Public Portal: cvportal.colliercountyfl.gov/CityViewWeb Next Steps •Hearing sign(s) posted on property advertising Hearing Examiner (HEX) meeting date. •CCPC –TBD •BCC -TBD Contact: •Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A.: Sharon Umpenhour, Senior Planning Technician; sumpenhour@gradyminor.com or 239.947.1144 extension 1249 •Collier County Staff: Gabriela Castro, AICP, Principal Planner; Gabriela.Castro@colliercountyfl.gov or (239) 252-4211 10 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: C NIM Documents (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134 239-947-1144 engineering@gradyminor.com www.gradyminor.com Good Turn MPUD (PL20210003228) Application and Supporting Documents May 19, 2022 CCPC Hearing 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) 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 January 7, 2022 Ms. Gabriela Castro, AICP Collier County Growth Management Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 RE: Good Turn Center MPUD Amendment – PL20210003228, Submittal 1 Dear Ms. Castro: On behalf of our client, Sparrow Acquisitions, LLC, we are submitting an application for a Planned Unit Development Amendment for the above referenced project. The applicant is proposing to modify Table I, Development Standards, by removing “3 stories over parking not to exceed” reference listed under “Maximum Height”. The development standards table will be revised to increase the zoned height of 45 feet to 55 feet and actual height of 55 feet to 65 feet. Documents filed with submittal 1 include the following: 1. Cover Letter 2. Application 3. Evaluation Criteria 4. Pre-Application Meeting Notes 5. Affidavit of Authorization 6. Property Ownership Disclosure 7. Covenant of Unified Control 8. Addressing Checklist 9. Warranty Deed 10. Ordinance 2009-53 11. Exhibit 1 Proposed PUD Revisions 12. Revised Master Plan 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) Ms. Gabriela Castro, AICP RE: Good Turn Center MPUD Amendment – PL20210003228, Submittal 1 January 7, 2022 Page 2 of 2 Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Enclosures Cc: Sparrow Acquisitions, LLC GradyMinor File (SPCP) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.collierĐŽƵŶƚLJ͘ŐŽǀ (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 0DUFK Page 1 of 11 Application for a Public Hearing for PUD Rezone, Amendment to PUD or PUD to PUD Rezone PETITION NO PROJECT NAME DATE PROCESSED PUD Rezone (PUDZ): LDC subsection 10.02.13 A.-F., Ch. 3 G. 1 of the Administrative Code Amendment to PUD (PUDA): LDC subsection 10.02.13 E. and Ch. 3 G. 2 of the Administrative Code PUD to PUD Rezone (PUDR): LDC subsection 10.02.13 A.-F. APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION Name of Property Owner(s): _________________________________________________________ Name of Applicant if different than owner: _____________________________________________ Address: _________________________City: _______________ State: _________ ZIP: ___________ Telephone: _______________________ Cell: ______________________ Fax: __________________ E-Mail Address: ____________________________________________________________________ Name of Agent: ____________________________________________________________________ Firm: _____________________________________________________________________________ Address: ____________________________City: _______________ State: _______ ZIP: __________ Telephone: ____________________ Cell: ____________________ Fax: _______________________ E-Mail Address: ____________________________________________________________________ Be aware that Collier County has lobbyist regulations. Guide yourself accordingly and ensure that you are in compliance with these regulations. To be completed by staff Collier Rattlesnake LLC Sparrow Acquisitions, LLC 2500 Bee Caves Rd., Bldg 1, Suite 380 Austin TX 78746 512-298-1338 milt.barber@sparrow-partners.com D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs FL 34134 239-947-1144 warnold@gradyminor.com 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ǁǁǁ͘ĐŽůůŝĞƌĐŽƵŶƚLJ͘ŐŽǀ (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 0DUFK Page 2 of 11 REZONE REQUEST This application is requesting a rezone from: _________________________ Zoning district(s) to the ________________________________ zoning district(s). Present Use of the Property: _________________________________________________________ Proposed Use (or range of uses) of the property: _________________________________________ Original PUD Name: ________________________________________________________________ Ordinance No.: ____________________________________________________________________ PROPERTY INFORMATION On a separate sheet attached to the application, provide a detailed legal description of the property covered by the application: x If the request involves changes to more than one zoning district, the applicant shall include a separate legal description for property involved in each district; x The applicant shall submit 4 copies of a recent survey (completed within the last six months, maximum 1" to 400' scale), if required to do so at the pre-application meeting; and x The applicant is responsible for supplying the correct legal description. If questions arise concerning the legal description, an engineer's certification or sealed survey may be required. Section/Township/Range: / / Lot: Block: Subdivision: ___________________________________________________ Metes & Bounds Description: _________________________________________________________ Plat Book: Page #: Property I.D. Number: ____________________________________ Size of Property: _______ ft. x _______ ft. = ________ Total Sq. Ft. Acres: _________ Address/ General Location of Subject Property: __________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ PUD District (refer to LDC subsection 2.03.06 C): Commercial Residential Community Facilities Industrial Mixed Use Other: ________________ Good Turn Center MPUD Good Turn Center MPUD Undeveloped Good Turn Center MPUD 2009-53 14 50 26 N.A. N.A.N.A. See Exhibit D of the PUD Ordinance N.A. N.A.00417400002 335 1237 413820+/-9.5+/- East side of Collier Blvd., north of Rattlesnake Hammock Road 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ǁǁǁ͘ĐŽůůŝĞƌĐŽƵŶƚLJ͘ŐŽǀ (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 0DUFK Page 3 of 11 ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE Zoning Land Use N S E W If the owner of the subject property owns contiguous property please provide a detailed legal description of the entire contiguous property on a separate sheet attached to the application. Section/Township/Range: / / Lot: Block: Subdivision: ___________________________________________________ Plat Book: Page #: Property I.D. Number: ____________________________________ Metes & Bounds Description: _________________________________________________________ ASSOCIATIONS Required: List all registered Home Owner Association(s) that could be affected by this petition. Provide additional sheets if necessary. Information can be found on the Board of County Commissioner’s website at http://www.colliergov.net/Index.aspx?page=774. Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______ Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______ Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______ Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______ Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______ C-4 Undeveloped Hammock Park Commerce Center CPUD Undeveloped A Undeveloped ROW Collier Boulevard N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.N.A. N.A. N.A.N.A. N.A. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ǁǁǁ͘ĐŽůůŝĞƌĐŽƵŶƚLJ͘ŐŽǀ (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 0DUFK Page 4 of 11 EVALUATION CRITERIA Pursuant to LDC subsections 10.02.13 B, 10.02.08 F and Chapter 3 G. of the Administrative Code, staff’s analysis and recommendation to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission’s recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners shall be based upon consideration of the applicable criteria. On a separate sheet attached to the application, provide a narrative statement describing the rezone request with specific reference to the criteria below. Include any backup materials and documentation in support of the request. a. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. b. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the county attorney. c. Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan. (This is to include identifying what Sub-district, policy or other provision allows the requested uses/density, and fully explaining/addressing all criteria or conditions of that Sub-district, policy or other provision.) d. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. e. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. f. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. g. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. h. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications of justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. Deed Restrictions: The County is legally precluded from enforcing deed restrictions; however, many communities have adopted such restrictions. You may wish to contact the civic or property owners association in the area for which this use is being requested in order to ascertain whether or not the request is affected by existing deed restrictions. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ǁǁǁ͘ĐŽůůŝĞƌĐŽƵŶƚLJ͘ŐŽǀ (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 0DUFK Page 5 of 11 Previous land use petitions on the subject property: To your knowledge, has a public hearing been held on this property within the last year? If so, what was the nature of that hearing? __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ Official Interpretations or Zoning Verifications: To your knowledge, has there been an official interpretation or zoning verification rendered on this property within the last year? Yes No if so please provide copies. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS This land use petition requires a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM), pursuant to Chapter 3 E. of the Administrative Code and LDC section 10.03.06. Following the NIM, the applicant will submit a written summary and any commitments that have been made at the meeting. Refer to Chapter 8 B. of the Administrative Code for the NIM procedural requirements. Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code requires that the applicant must remove their public hearing advertising sign(s) after final action is taken by the Board of County Commissioners. Based on the Board's final action on this item, please remove all public hearing advertising sign(s) immediately. RECORDING OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS Within 30 days of adoption of the Ordinance, the owner or developer (specify name) at their expense shall record in the Public Records of Collier County a Memorandum of Understanding of Developer Commitments or Notice of Developer Commitments that contains the legal description of the property that is the subject of the land use petition and contains each and every commitment of the owner or developer specified in the Ordinance. The Memorandum or Notice shall be in form acceptable to the County and shall comply with the recording requirements of Chapter 695, FS. A recorded copy of the Memorandum or Notice shall be provided to the Collier County Planned Unit Development Monitoring staff within 15 days of recording of said Memorandum or Notice. LDC subsection 10.02.08 D This application will be considered “open” when the determination of “sufficiency” has been made and the application is assigned a petition processing number. The application will be considered “closed” when the petitioner withdraws the application through written notice or ceases to supply necessary information to continue processing or otherwise actively pursue the rezoning, amendment or change, for a period of 6 months. An application deemed “closed” will not receive further processing and an application “closed” through inactivity shall be deemed withdrawn. An application deemed “closed” may be re-opened by submission of a new application, repayment of all application fees and the grant of a determination of “sufficiency”. Further review of the request will be subject to the then current code. NO 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ǁǁǁ͘ĐŽůůŝĞƌĐŽƵŶƚLJ͘ŐŽǀ (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 0DUFK Page 6 of 11 STATEMENT OF UTILITY PROVISIONS FOR PUD REZONE REQUEST APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION Name of Applicant(s): _______________________________________________________________ Address: _________________________________ City: ___________ State: ________ ZIP: _______ Telephone: ____________________ Cell: _____________________ Fax: ______________________ E-Mail Address: ____________________________________________________________________ Address of Subject Property (If available): ______________________________________________ City: _________________ State: ________ ZIP: _________ PROPERTY INFORMATION Section/Township/Range: / / Lot: Block: Subdivision: ___________________________________________________ Metes & Bounds Description: _________________________________________________________ Plat Book: Page #: Property I.D. Number: ____________________________________ TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL TO BE PROVIDED Check applicable system: a. County Utility System b. City Utility System c. Franchised Utility System Provide Name: __________________________ d. Package Treatment Plant (GPD Capacity): _________________________ e. Septic System TYPE OF WATER SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED Check applicable system: a. County Utility System b. City Utility System c. Franchised Utility System Provide Name: __________________________ d. Private System (Well) Total Population to be Served: ________________________________________________________ Peak and Average Daily Demands: A. Water-Peak: _________ Average Daily: __________ B. Sewer-Peak: _________ Average Daily: __________ If proposing to be connected to Collier County Regional Water System, please provide the date service is expected to be required: ____________________________________________________ Sparrow Acquisitions, LLC 2500 Bee Caves Rd., Bldg 1, Suite 380 Austin TX 78746 512-298-1338 milt.barber@sparrow-partners.com N.A. 14 50 26 N.A. N.A.N.A. See Exhibit D of the PUD Ordinance N.A. N.A.00417400002 X X No increase in intensity or density N.A.N.A. N.A. N.A. Unknown at this time 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ǁǁǁ͘ĐŽůůŝĞƌĐŽƵŶƚLJ͘ŐŽǀ (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 0DUFK Page 7 of 11 Narrative statement: Provide a brief and concise narrative statement and schematic drawing of sewage treatment process to be used as well as a specific statement regarding the method of affluent and sludge disposal. If percolation ponds are to be used, then percolation data and soil involved shall be provided from tests prepared and certified by a professional engineer. __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ Collier County Utility Dedication Statement: If the project is located within the service boundaries of Collier County’s utility service system, a notarized statement shall be provided agreeing to dedicate the water distribution and sewage collection facilities within the project area to the Collier County Utilities. This shall occur upon completion of the construction of these facilities in accordance with all applicable County ordinances in effect at that time. This statement shall also include an agreement that the applicable system development charges and connection fees will be paid to the County Utilities Division prior to the issuance of building permits by the County. If applicable, the statement shall contain an agreement to dedicate the appropriate utility easements for serving the water and sewer systems. __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ Statement of Availability Capacity from other Providers: Unless waived or otherwise provided for at the pre-application meeting, if the project is to receive sewer or potable water services from any provider other than the County, a statement from that provider indicating adequate capacity to serve the project shall be provided. N.A. N.A. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ǁǁǁ͘ĐŽůůŝĞƌĐŽƵŶƚLJ͘ŐŽǀ (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 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 ___________________________________ Printed Name ___________________________________ Owner ____________________________________ Printed Name STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER dŚĞĨŽƌĞŐŽŝŶŐŝŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚǁĂƐĂĐŬŶŽǁůĞŐĞĚďĞĨŽƌĞŵĞďLJŵĞĂŶƐŽĨ ƉŚLJƐŝĐĂůƉƌĞƐĞŶĐĞŽƌŽŶůŝŶĞŶŽƚĂƌŝnjĂƚŝŽŶƚŚŝƐͺͺͺͺ ĚĂLJŽĨͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ͕ϮϬͺͺͺ͕ďLJ;ƉƌŝŶƚĞĚŶĂŵĞŽĨŽǁŶĞƌŽƌƋƵĂůŝĨŝĞƌͿͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ^ƵĐŚƉĞƌƐŽŶ;ƐͿEŽƚĂƌLJWƵďůŝĐŵƵƐƚĐŚĞĐŬĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞďŽdž͗ ƌĞƉĞƌƐŽŶĂůůLJŬŶŽǁŶƚŽŵĞ ,ĂƐƉƌŽĚƵĐĞĚĂĐƵƌƌĞŶƚĚƌŝǀĞƌƐůŝĐĞŶƐĞͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ,ĂƐƉƌŽĚƵĐĞĚͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺĂƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͘ EŽƚĂƌLJ^ŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞ͗ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ DĂƌĐŚϰ͕ϮϬϮϬ Notary ^ĞĂů Good Turn Center MPUD Mixed Use M 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ǁǁǁ͘ĐŽůůŝĞƌĐŽƵŶƚLJ͘ŐŽǀ (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 0DUFK Page 9 of 11 Final Submittal Requirement Checklist for: PUD Rezone- Ch. 3 G. 1 of the Administrative Code Amendment to PUD- Ch. 3 G. 2 of the Administrative Code PUD to PUD Rezone- Ch. 3 G. 1 of the Administrative Code The following Submittal Requirement checklist is to be utilized during the Pre-Application Meeting and at time of application submittal. At final submittal, the checklist is to be completed and submitted with an up-to-date application. Please provide the submittal items in the exact order listed below, with cover sheets attached to each section. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. A Model PUD Document is available online at http://www.colliercountyfl.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=76983. REQUIREMENTS # OF COPIES REQUIRED NOT REQUIRED Cover Letter with Narrative Statement including a detailed description of why amendment is necessary 1 Completed Application with required attachments (download latest version) 1 Pre-application meeting notes 1 Affidavit of Authorization, signed and notarized 1 Property Ownership Disclosure Form 1 Notarized and completed Covenant of Unified Control 1 Completed Addressing Checklist 1 Warranty Deed(s) 1 List Identifying Owner and all parties of corporation 1 Signed and sealed Boundary Survey 1 Architectural Rendering of proposed structures 1 Current Aerial Photographs (available from Property Appraiser) with project boundary and, if vegetated, FLUCFCS Codes with legend included on aerial. 1 Statement of Utility Provisions 1 Environmental Data Requirements pursuant to LDC section 3.08.00 1 Environmental Data Requirements collated into a single Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) packet at time of public hearings. Coordinate with project planner at time of public hearings. Listed or Protected Species survey, less than 12 months old. Include copies of previous surveys. 1 Traffic Impact Study 1 Historical Survey 1 School Impact Analysis Application, if applicable 1 Electronic copy of all required documents 1 Completed Exhibits A-F (see below for additional information)+ List of requested deviations from the LDC with justification for each (this document is separate from Exhibit E) Checklist continues on next page X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ǁǁǁ͘ĐŽůůŝĞƌĐŽƵŶƚLJ͘ŐŽǀ (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 0DUFKPage 10 of 11 Revised Conceptual Master Site Plan 24” x 36”and One 8 ½” x 11” copy Original PUD document/ordinance, and Master Plan 24” x 36” – Only if Amending the PUD Revised PUD document with changes crossed thru & underlined 1 Copy of Official Interpretation and/or Zoning Verification 1 *If located in Immokalee or seeking affordable housing, include an additional set of each submittal requirement +The following exhibits are to be completed on a separate document and attached to the application packet: Exhibit A: List of Permitted Uses Exhibit B: Development Standards Exhibit C: Master Plan- See Chapter 3 E. 1. of the Administrative Code Exhibit D: Legal Description Exhibit E: List of Requested LDC Deviations and justification for each Exhibit F: List of Development Commitments If located in RFMU (Rural Fringe Mixed Use) Receiving Land Areas Pursuant to LDC subsection 2.03.08.A.2.a.2.(b.)i.c., the applicant must contact the Florida Forest Service at 239- 690-3500 for information regarding “Wildfire Mitigation & Prevention Plan.” PLANNERS – INDICATE IF THE PETITION NEEDS TO BE ROUTED TO THE FOLLOWING REVIEWERS: School District (Residential Components): Amy Lockheart Conservancy of SWFL: Nichole Johnson Utilities Engineering: Eric Fey Parks and Recreation: Barry Williams (Director) Emergency Management: Dan Summers Immokalee Water/Sewer District: City of Naples: Robin Singer, Planning Director Other: City of Naples Utilities Other: ASSOCIATED FEES FOR APPLICATION Pre-Application Meeting: $500.00 PUD Rezone:$10,000.00* plus $25.00 an acre or fraction of an acre PUD to PUD Rezone:$8,000.00* plus $25.00 an acre or fraction of an acre PUD Amendment:$6,000.00* plus $25.00 an acre or fraction of an acre Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review:$2,250.00 Environmental Data Requirements-EIS Packet (submittal determined at pre-application meeting):$2,500.00 Listed or Protected Species Review (when an EIS is not required):$1,000.00 Transportation Review Fees: o Methodology Review: $500.00 *Additional fees to be determined at Methodology Meeting. o Minor Study Review: $750.00 o Major Study Review $1,500.00 X X X X 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 0DUFKPage 11 of 11 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ǁǁǁ͘ĐŽůůŝĞƌĐŽƵŶƚLJ͘ŐŽǀ Legal Advertising Fees: o CCPC: $1,125.00 o BCC: $500.00 School Concurrency Fee, if applicable: o Mitigation Fees, if application, to be determined by the School District in coordination with the County Fire Code Plans Review Fees are not listed, but are collected at the time of application submission and those fees are set forth by the Authority having jurisdiction. The Land Development Code requires Neighborhood Notification mailers for Applications headed to hearing, and this fee is collected prior to hearing. All checks payable to: Board of County Commissioners. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. *Additional fee for the 5th and subsequent re-submittal will be accessed at 20% of the original fee. ___________________________________ _____________ Signature of Petitioner or Agent Date ___________________________________ Printed named of signing party o o D. Wayne Arnold Digitally signed by D. Wayne Arnold Date: 2021.12.13 15:59:06 -05'00' D. Wayne Arnold, AICP 12/13/2021 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) Good Turn Center MPUD Amendment (PL20210002184) Evaluation Criteria December 14, 2021 Page 1 of 5 SPCP Evaluation Criteria.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 Good Turn Center Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) is a 9.5± acre project located on the east corner of Collier Boulevard, approximately 1/4 mile north of Rattlesnake Hammock Road. The PUD is undeveloped. The intent of the PUD amendment is to modify Table I, Development Standards, by removing “3 stories over parking not to exceed” reference listed under “Maximum Height”. The development standards table will be revised to increase the zoned height of 45 feet to 55 feet and actual height of 55 feet to 65 feet. 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. This area remains suitable for the uses permitted in the Good Turn Center MPUD. The applicant intends to develop senior housing on the site, which is an approved use in the PUD. b. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the county attorney. The applicant is the contract purchaser for the MPUD. c. Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan. (This is to include identifying what Sub-district, policy or other provision allows the requested uses/density, and fully explaining/addressing all criteria or conditions of that Sub-district, policy or other provision.) The proposed PUD amendment is consistent with other Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Growth Management Plan as discussed below. Future Land Use Element: The subject property is located in the Mixed Use Activity Center which allows for a full range of commercial and non-residential land uses, including the use authorized in the original PUD 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) December 14, 2021 Page 2 of 5 SPCP Evaluation Criteria.docx approval in 2009. The proposed PUD revision proposes only to modify the zoned and actual building height. 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 previously approved PUD is internally and externally compatible. The PUD has development standards appropriate for the uses, which include buffers. The proposed height increase to 55 feet zoned and 65 feet actual is comparable to that permitted on adjacent properties. The property to the south is zoned Hammock Park PUD which allows a full range of commercial uses with a zoned height of 50 feet and no actual height measurement. The property to the north is zoned C-4, General Commercial which permits a zoned height of 75 feet. The property is separated from its nearest neighbor to the east by a 170 foot wide FP&L corridor. e. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. No revisions are being made to the project’s required open space. f. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. All nearby infrastructure is adequate to serve the project that will be constructed in a single phase. g. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The MPUD boundary is not proposed to be modified. 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 MPUD includes development standards and conditions, which will assure compatible and complementary development. No modifications are proposed to the required project buffers. 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 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) December 14, 2021 Page 3 of 5 SPCP Evaluation Criteria.docx 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. Yes, the proposed change to the building height is consistent with the GMPA. There are no proposed changes to the approved uses for the site. 2. The existing land use pattern. The adjacent properties are zoned for commercial and agricultural uses and are currently undeveloped. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The PUD is existing and therefore no isolated district is being created. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The boundaries are not illogically drawn and comprise all of the property under the unified control of the applicant. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. The property is under contract by a national builder of senior housing communities. The proposed modification to the building height is consistent with other communities they have constructed. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The PUD document includes a master plan, schedule of uses, development standards, and developer commitments, which will ensure that it is compatible with the immediately surrounding properties. The PUD master plan identifies the location of appropriate buffers and open spaces, which will further ensure that the development will have no adverse impact. 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.1.e Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) December 14, 2021 Page 4 of 5 SPCP Evaluation Criteria.docx No additional dwelling units or commercial uses are proposed; therefore, there are no additional traffic impacts. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. Adequate area exists on-site for stormwater retention, and no change to the approved discharge rate is proposed. No additional stormwater retention areas will be required. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. The proposed change will have no impact to light or air to adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. The modification to building height should have no impact on property values. 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 are currently undeveloped, therefore there is no impact to adjacent properties. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. No. the property owner has the right to request zoning changes to their property. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The existing zoning is the Good Turn Center MPUD which permits commercial land uses and group housing uses. The amendment is necessary to allow a minor increase in height from the previously approved 45-foot zoned height to 55 foot zoned height and actual height of 55 feet to 65 feet. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county. The proposed amendment is in scale with the needs of the neighborhood and 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. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) December 14, 2021 Page 5 of 5 SPCP Evaluation Criteria.docx It is not impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed uses; however, this site was previously approved to permitted commercial land uses and skilled nursing care facility uses. 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 site is presently undeveloped. Typical site work involving land clearing and importation of fill will be required to bring the site up to the required finished floor elevation. 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 to the site. 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. Not applicable. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) 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 N.A. 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 Collier Rattlesnake LLC 100 Turner Property Management, LLC, Manager, 801 Anchor Rode Drive #205, Naples, FL 34103 Tammy Kipp, Manager Amy Turner, Manager 100 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 N.A. PROPERTY OWNERSHIP DISCLOSURE FORM 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) 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 N.A. e. If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers below, including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners: Name and Address % of Ownership Sparrow Acquisitions, LLC, 2500 Bee Caves Rd., Bldg 1, Suite 380, Austin, TX 78746 - Sole member of Sparrow Acquisitions, LLC is Sparrow Capital Partners, LLC, Sole Member Luke Bourlon, Manager Jeffrey Patterson, Manager Matthew Heininger, Manager 100 100 Date of Contract: July 19, 2021 f. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust: g. Name and Address N.A. h. Date subject property acquired 2007 Leased: Term of lease years /months 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) 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 If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following: Date of option: Date option terminates: , or Anticipated closing date: 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 D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Date AFFIRM PROPERTY OWNERSHIP INFORMATION 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-5724 ADDRESSING CHECKLIST Please complete the following and email to GMD_Addressing@colliergov.net or fax to the Operations Division at 239-252-5724 or submit in person to the Addressing Section at the above address. Form must be signed by Addressing personnel prior to pre-application meeting, please allow 3 days for processing. Not all items will apply to every project. Items in bold type are required. FOLIO NUMBERS MUST BE PROVIDED. Forms older than 6 months will require additional review and approval by the Addressing Section. PETITION TYPE (Indicate type below, complete a separate Addressing Checklist for each Petition type) BL (Blasting Permit) BD (Boat Dock Extension) Carnival/Circus Permit CU (Conditional Use) EXP (Excavation Permit) FP (Final Plat LLA (Lot Line Adjustment) PNC (Project Name Change) PPL (Plans & Plat Review) PSP (Preliminary Subdivision Plat) PUD Rezone RZ (Standard Rezone) SDP (Site Development Plan) SDPA (SDP Amendment) SDPI (Insubstantial Change to SDP) SIP (Site Im provement Plan) SIPI (Insubstantial Change to SIP) SNR (Street Name Change) SNC (Street Name Change – Unplatted) TDR (Transfer of Development Rights) VA (Variance) VRP (Vegetation Removal Permit) VRSFP (Vegetation Removal & Site Fill Permit) OTHER LEGAL DESCRIPT ION of subject property or properties (copy of lengthy description may be attached) FOLIO (Property ID) NUMBER(s) of above (attach to, or associate with, legal description if more than one) STREET ADDRESS or ADDRESSES (as applicable, if already assigned) PROPOSED STREET NAMES (if applicable) SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NUMBER (for existing projects/sites only) LOCATION MAP must be attached showing exact location of project/site in relation to nearest public road right- of-way PROPOSED PROJECT NAME (if applicable) SDP - or AR or PL # SURVEY (copy - needed only for unplatted properties) CURRENT PROJECT NAME (if applicable) Rev. 6/9/2017 Page 1 of 2 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA)n PUD Amendment S14, T50, R26 (see attached) 00417400002 Good Turn Center MPUD COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-5724 Please Return Approved Checklist By: Email Personally picked up Applicant Name: Signature on Addressing Checklist does not constitute Project and/or Street Name approval and is subject to further review by the Operations Division. FOR STAFF USE ONLY Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Approved by: Date: Updated by: Date: IF OLDER THAN 6 MONTHS, FORM MUST BE UPDATED OR NEW FORM SUBMITTED Fax Email/Fax:Phone: Project or development names proposed for, or already appearing in, condominium documents (if application; indicate whether proposed or existing) Rev. 6/9/2017 Page 2 of 2 00417400002 12/14/2021 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA)n Sharon Umpenhour 239-947-1144 sumpenhour@gradyminor.com 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) flr 128293n11IiN J1N0oqIc ORDINANCE NO 09 53ANORDINANCEOFTHEBOARD OF COUNTYCOMMISSIONERSOFCOLLIERCOUNTYFLORIDAAMENDINGORDINANCENUMBER200441ASAMENDEDTHECOLLIERCOUNTYLANDDEVELOPMENTCODEWHICHESTABLISHEDTHECOMPREHENSIVEZONINGREGULATIONSFORTHEUNINCORPORATEDAREAOFCOLLIERCOUNTYFLORIDABYAMENDINGTHEAPPROPRIATEZONINGATLASMAPORMAPSBY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A RURAL AGRICULTURAL A ZONING DISTRICT TO A MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MPUD ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS THE GOOD TURN CENTER MPUD TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A MAXIMUM OF 100 000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL LAND USES AND OR A VARIETY OF SKILLED NURSING CARE FACILITY USES WITH A MAXIMUM OF 200 UNITS IN SECTION 14 TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH RANGE 26 EAST COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA CONSISTING OF 9 5 ACRES AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE g n4PlI WHEREAS Wayne Arnold AICP of Q Grady Minor Inc and Richard Yovanovich of Coleman Yovanovich Koester P A representing Collier Rattlesnake LLC 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 26 East Collier County Florida is changed from a Rural Agricultural A Zoning District to a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development MPUD Zoning District for the 9 5 acre project to be known as the Good Turn Center MPUD to allow construction of a maximum of 100 000 square feet of commercial land uses and or a variety of skilled nursing care facility uses with a maximum of 200 units in accordance with the MPUD Document attached hereto as Exhibits A through E and incorporated by reference herein 1 of2 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps as described in Ordinance Number 2004 41 asamendedtheCollierCountyLandDevelopmentCodeisareherebyamendedaccordinglySECTIONTWOThisOrdinanceshallbecomeeffectiveuponfilingwiththeDepartmentofStatePASSEDANDDULYADOPTEDbysupermajorityvoteoftheBoardofCountyCommissionersofCollierCountyFloridathisJ3dayofdobtr2009 ATTEST DWIGHT It RU ole BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER CO TY FLORIDA dBy at y S r1t cJlJ3rIo DO A FIALA Chairman Approved as to form and legal sufficiencyLAolA Ute di Ashton Cicko Assistant County Attorney Attachments Exhibit A Permitted Uses Exhibit B Development Standards Exhibit C Master Plan Exhibit D Legal Description Exhibit E List of Developer Commitments CP 09 CPS 00970 5 f1 1 bfdl rt6t1c e filed wh ltle S Htory of Sta O e dayof Pi tlnd acknowledgement of that l i6 d Y Q Deputy telk 20f2 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) EXHIBIT AFORGOODTURNCENTER MPUDPERMITTEDUSESAmaximumof100000sqftofcommerciallandusesandup to 200 group housing units shallbepermittedNobuildingorstructureorpartthereofshallbeerectedalteredorusedorlandusedinwholeorinpartforotherthanthefollowingCommercialTractCAPrincipalUses 1 Administration of economic programs Groups 9611 Administration of general economic programs 9621 Regulation and administration of transportation programs 9631 Regulation and administration of communications electric gas and other utilities 9641 Regulation of agricultural marketing and commodities 9651 Regulation licensing and inspection of miscellaneous commercial sectors 2 Administration of environmental quality and housing programs Groups 9511 Air and water resource and solid waste management 9512 Land mineral wildlife and forest conservation 9531 Administration of housing programs 9532 Administration of urban planning and community and rural development 3 Administration of human resource programs Groups 9411 Administration of educational programs 9431 Administration of public health programs 9451 Administration of veterans affairs except health and insurance 4 Agricultural services Groups 0781 landscape counseling and planning 5 Amusement and recreation services Groups 7911 Dance studios schools and halls 7991 Physical fitness facilities including tanning salons 7999 Amusement and recreation services not elsewhere classified including only golf driving range judo karate instruction moped motorcycle rental bicycle rental and yoga instruction 6 Apparel and accessory stores Groups 5611 Men s and boys clothing and accessory stores 5621 Women s clothing stores 5632 Women s accessory and specialty stores specifically excluding adult oriented sales or rentals 5641 Children s and infants wear stores 5651 Family clothing stores 5661 Shoe stores 5699 Miscellaneous apparel and accessory stores 7 Automotive dealers and gasoline service stations Exhibits A E Rev 12 lO 13 09 doc Page 1 AR 12773 GTCPUD 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) Groups 5531 Auto and home supply stores5541Gasolineservicestations8AutomotiverepairservicesandparkingGroups7514Passengercarrental7515Passengercarleasing7532Topbodyandupholsteryrepair shops and paint shops7533Automotiveexhaustsystemrepairshops7534Tireretreadingandrepairshops7536Automotiveglassreplacementshops7537Automotivetransmissionrepairshops7538Generalautomotiverepairshops7539Automotiverepairshopsnotelsewhereclassified 7542 Carwashes 7549 Automotive services except repair and carwashes 9 Building materials hardware garden supply and mobile home dealers Groups 5211 Lumber and other building materials dealer 5231 Paint glass and wallpaper stores 5251 Hardware stores 5261 Retail nurseries lawn and garden supply stores 10 Business services Groups 7311 Advertising agencies 7313 Radio television and publishers advertising representatives 7319 Advertising not elsewhere classified 7322 Adjustment and collection services 7323 Credit reporting services 7331 Direct mail advertising services 7334 Photocopying and duplicating services 7335 Commercial photography 7336 Commercial art and graphic design 7338 Secretarial and court reporting services 7352 Medical equipment rental and leasing 7371 Computer programming services 7372 Prepackaged software 7373 Computer integrated systems design 7374 Computer processing and data preparation and processing services 7375 Information retrieval services 7376 Computer facilities management services 7377 Computer rental and leasing 7378 Computer maintenance and repair 7379 Computer related services not elsewhere classified 7383 News syndicates 11 Membership organizations Group 8661 Religious organizations 12 Depository institutions Groups 6011 Federal reserve banks 6019 Central reserve depository institutions not elsewhere classified 6021 National commercial banks 6022 State commercial banks 6029 Commercial banks not elsewhere classified 6035 Savings institutions federally chartered Exhibits A E Rev 12 lO 13 09 doc Page 2 AR 12773 GTCPUD 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) 6036 Savings institutions not federally chartered6061Creditunionsfederallychartered6062Creditunionsnotfederallychartered6081Branchesandagenciesofforeignbanks6082Foreigntradeandinternationalbankinginstitutions6091Nondeposittrustfacilities13EatinganddrinkingplacesGroups5812Eatingplacesincludingindoorandoutdoorseating with noamplifiedmusicortelevisions14EducationalservicesGroups8243Dataprocessingschools 8244 Business and secretarial schools 8249 Vocational schools not elsewhere classified 8299 Schools and educational services not elsewhere classified 15 Engineering accounting research management and related services Groups 8711 Engineering services 8712 Architectural services 8713 Surveying services 8721 Accounting auditing and bookkeeping services 8731 Commercial physical and biological research 8732 Commercial economic sociological and educational research 8733 Noncommercial research organizations 8734 Testing laboratories 8741 Management services 8742 Management consulting services 8743 Public relations services 8748 Business consulting services not elsewhere classified 16 Essential services Section 2 01 03 of the LDC 17 Executive legislative and general government except finance Groups 9111 Executive offices 9121 Legislative bodies 9131 Executive and legislative offices combined 9199 General government not elsewhere classified 18 Food Stores Groups 5411 Grocery stores 5421 Meat and fish seafood markets including freezer provisioners 5431 Fruit and vegetable markets 5441 Candy nut and confectionery stores 5451 Dairy products stores 5461 Retail bakeries 5499 Miscellaneous food stores 19 General merchandise stores Groups 5311 Department stores 5399 Miscellaneous general merchandise stores 20 Health services Groups 8011 Offices and clinics of doctors of medicine 8021 Offices and clinics of dentists 8031 Offices and clinics of doctors of osteopathy Exhibits A E Rev 12 10 13 09 doc Page 3 AR 12773 GTCPUD 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) 8041 Offices and clinics of chiropractors8042Officesandclinicsofoptometrists8043Officesandclinicsofpodiatrists8049Officesandclinicsofhealthpractitioners not elsewhereclassified8071Medicallaboratories8072Dentallaboratories8082Homehealthcareservices8092Kidneydialysiscenters21HoldingandotherInvestmentofficesGroups6712Officesofbankholdingcompanies6719Officesofholdingcompaniesnotelsewhereclassified 6722 Management investment offices open end 6726 Unit investment trusts face amount certificate offices and closed end management investment offices 6732 Educational religious and charitable trusts 6733 Trusts except educational religious and charitable 6792 Oil royalty traders 6794 Patent owners and lessors 6798 Real estate investment trusts 6799 Investors not elsewhere classified 22 Home furniture furnishings and equipment stores Groups 5712 Furniture stores 5713 Floor covering stores 5714 Drapery curtain and upholstery stores 5722 Household appliance stores 5731 Radio television and consumer electronics stores 5734 Computer and computer software stores 5735 Record and prerecorded tape stores specifically excluding adult oriented sales or rentals 5736 Musical instrument stores 23 Insurance agents brokers and service Group 6411 Insurance agents brokers and service 24 Insurance carriers Groups 6311 Life insurance 6321 Accident and health insurance 6324 Hospital and medical service plans 6331 Fire marine and casualty insurance 6351 Surety insurance 6361 Title insurance 25 Justice public order and safety Groups 9211 Courts 9221 Police protection 9222 Legal counsel and prosecution 9224 Fire protection 9229 Public order and safety not elsewhere classified 26 Legal services Group 8111 27 Membership organizations Groups 8611 Business associations Exhibits A E Rev 12 IO 13 09 doc Page 4 AR 12773 GTCPUD 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) 8621 Professional membership organizations8631Laborunionsandsimilarlabororganizations8641Civicsocialandfraternalassociations8651PoliticalOrganizations28MiscellaneousretailGroups5912Drugstoresandproprietarystores5921Liquorstores5932Usedmerchandisestoresincludingonlyantique stores5941Sportinggoodsstoresandbicycleshops5942BookStoresexcludingadultorientedstores5943StationeryStores5944JewelryStores 5945 Hobby toy and game shops 5946 Camera and photographic supply stores 5947 Gift novelty and souvenir shops 5948 Luggage and leather goods stores 5949 Sewing needlework and piece goods stores 5961 Catalog and mail order houses 5962 Automatic merchandising machine operators 5963 Direct selling establishments 5992 Florists 5993 Tobacco stores and stands 5994 News dealers and newsstands 5995 Optical goods stores 5999 Miscellaneous retail stores not elsewhere classified 29 Miscellaneous services Group 8999 Services not elsewhere classified 30 Non depository credit institutions Groups 6162 Mortgage bankers and loan correspondents 6163 Loan brokers 31 Personal services Groups 7212 Garment pressing and agents for laundries and drycleaners 7221 Photographic studios portrait 7231 Beauty shops 7241 Barber shops 7291 Tax return preparation services 32 Public finance taxation and monetary policy Group 9311 33 Real estate Groups 6531 Real estate agents and managers 6541 Title abstract offices 6552 Land subdividers and developers except cemeteries 34 Security and commodity brokers dealers exchanges and services Groups 6211 Security brokers dealers and flotation companies 6221 Commodity contracts brokers and dealers 6231 Security and commodity exchanges 6282 I nvestment advice 6289 Services allied with the exchange of securities or commodities not elsewhere classified Exhibits A E Rev 12 10 13 09 doc Page 5 AR 12773 GTCPUD 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) 35 Social servicesGroups8331 Job training and vocational rehabilitation services8351Childdaycareservices8399Socialservicesnotelsewhereclassified36VeterinarianserviceGroup074237VideotaperentalGroup7841excludingadultorientedsalesBAccessoryUsesStructures1Signswatermanagementessentialservicescoveredparkingnature trails indoorandoutdoorrecreationalfacilitiesSignageshallbepermittedinaccordancewiththe standards of the Land Development Code LDC 2 Other accessory uses and structures customarily permitted for a principal use C Prohibited Uses 1 Residential care Group 8361 including soup kitchens and homeless shelters alcohol and drug rehabilitation centers homes for emotionally disturbed juvenile correction homes orphanages and self help group homes 2 Hospitals Groups 8063 Psychiatric hospitals 8069 Specialty hospitals except psychiatric 8093 Specialty outpatient facilities not elsewhere classified Community Facility Tract CF A Principal Uses 1 Health services Skilled nursing care facilities Assisted living facilities independent living facilities for persons over age 55 continuing care retirement communities and nursing homes maximum FAR of 0 6 not to exceed 200 units B Accessory Uses Structures 1 Signs water management essential services covered parking nature trails indoor and outdoor recreational facilities Signage shall be permitted in accordance with the standards of the Land Development Code LDC 2 Other accessory uses and structures customarily permitted for a principal use 3 Beauty and barber shops resident dining including serving of alcohol and other personal services related to assisted living facilities independent living facilities for persons over age 55 continuing care retirement communities and nursing homes The uses are limited to use by residents and their guests Exhibits A E Rev 12 lO 13 09 doc Page 6 AR 12773 GTCPUD 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) C Operational CharacteristicsThedeveloperoftheindependent living units and retirement community its successorsorassignsshallprovidethefollowingservicesandorbesubjecttothefollowingoperationalstandards1Thefacilityshallbeforresidents55yearsofageandolder2Thereshallbeonsitediningfortheresidents3GrouptransportationservicesshallbeprovidedforresidentsforthepurposesofgroceryandothertypesofshoppingIndividualtransportationservicesshallbecoordinatedfortheresidentsindividualizedneedsincludingbutnotlimitedto medical office visits 4 There shall be an on site manager activities coordinator to assist residents with their individual needs The manager coordinator shall also be responsible for arranging trips to off site events as well as planning for lectures movies music and other entertainment for the residents at the on site clubhouse 5 A wellness center shall be provided on site Exercise and other fitness programs shall be provided for the residents 6 Each unit shall be equipped with devices provided to notify emergency service providers in the event of a medical or other emergency 7 For independent living units each unit shall be designed so that a resident is able to age in place For example kitchens may be easily retrofitted to lower the sink to accommodate a wheelchair bound resident or bathrooms may be retrofitted to add grab bars D Prohibited Uses 1 Residential care Group 8361 including soup kitchens and homeless shelters alcohol and drug rehabilitation centers homes for emotionally disturbed juvenile correction homes orphanages and self help group homes 2 Hospitals Groups 8063 Psychiatric hospitals 8069 Specialty hospitals except psychiatric 8093 Specialty outpatient facilities not elsewhere classified Preserve Tract A Principal Uses 1 Passive recreation and walking trails Exhibits A E Rev 12 IO 13 09 doc Page 7 AR 12773 GTCPUD 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) EXHIBIT BFORGOODTURNCENTER MPUDDEVELOPMENTSTANDARDSTableIbelowsetsforththedevelopmentstandardsforlanduses within the MPUD StandardsnotspecificallysetforthhereinshallbethosespecifiedinapplicablesectionsoftheLandDevelopmentCodeineffectasofthedateofapprovaloftheSiteDevelopmentPlanSDPorSubdivisionplatTABLEIDEVELOPMENTSTANDARDSFORMIXEDUSEDISTRICT C TRACT CF TRACT PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES MINIMUM LOT AREA 5 000 square feet 10 000 square feet MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 75 Ft 100 Ft MINIMUM SETBACKS External Front 25 Ft 25 Ft Side 25 Ft 25 Ft Rear 40 Ft 40 Ft MINIMUM SETBACKS Internal Internal Drives Right of 10Ft 10Ft way Property Lines Preserve 25 Ft 25 Ft MIN DISTANCE BETWEEN 20 Ft or sum of Building heights 20 Ft or sum of Building STRUCTURES heights MAXIMUM HEIGHT Zoned Height 3 stories over parking Zoned Height 3 stories over not to exceed 45 Ft parking not to exceed 45 Ft Actual Height 3 stories over parking Actual Height 3 stories over not to exceed 55 ft oarkinc not to exceed 55 ft MAX GROSS LEASABLE AREA 100 000 Sq Ft FAR 0 6 ACCESSORY USES MINIMUM SETBACKS External Front 25 Ft 25 Ft Side 15 Ft 15 Ft Rear 15 Ft 15 Ft MINIMUM SETBACKS Internal Internal Drives Right of OFt OFt way Property Lines Preserve 10Ft 10Ft MIN DISTANCE BETWEEN S P S S P S STRUCTURES MAXIMUM HEIGHT 25 Ft 25 Ft whichever is greater Applies to commercial and office uses Any use subject to an FAR will be subject to the square feet permitted under that FAR S P S Same as Principal Structures Exhibits A E Rev 12 10 13 09 doc Page 8 AR 12773 GTCPUD 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) UJHIZ0ClUJcClClz0NUJSV OO NliiiUJffooIt3 adUJuulLIIIJwJbUJ0co co0NNUJ I Z I wOw31 5 wZIiDwltI1wwo0oenZZuCi00OUJt0zenUJOIUJwZzIIlWIfofzIUJUJlwOoxUJenzZIIl0wO0flten1UJolIZ10IQenenenZ8UJ0enSwI0UJOJfzf0001WenClClZ 2 I oUJ z z g I Z Zo o N UJ I UJoW en OU UC l 1I 1t Olt II 11 0 ti ZwttUJ ili t U UWl 1 Nccueu I g QlW KIDOIIlILOOOO zeIVIfticI3ulemIxciHiiiijfJlHijiJ0Iifi0 ll 6 C IIz 2 I oenaenI 8 g8 o W N i I ia 0 i1i I lz ciwCl C J ijj3itooClat ZUJoEJ 5 fi IIlOCl ff I ff rH j I 8 j @ilI I IIJ a i I w a 1g11t i ull i co z ijz zwOenN i Ii Z iietu zot UJ Z z 1 0 zO I ffi ffi u u i I L J J ll3l lnB 0 3dAl 301M O B v 9 Z DO ZB v 7I1NIIJ ON iS X3 S Z OD N 11M 10 iHO I iii 0JIII 37nOB l3770 J ffi d 5 0 lrffi oo zoo Wen ij i 2 AIIM JO l IJ IIM JO l IJ9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 200Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) EXHIBIT DFORGOODTURNCENTER MPUDLEGALDESCRIPTIONCOMMENCEATTHESOUTHWESTCORNEROFSECTION 14 TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTHRANGE26EASTCOLLIERCOUNTYFLORIDATHENCERUNNORTH0003256EASTALONGTHEWESTLINEOFSAIDSECTION14FORADISTANCEOF66964FEETTHENCERUNNORTH8r1849EASTFORADISTANCEOF10016FEETTOTHEEASTRIGHTOFWAYLINEOFCOUNTYROAD951SAIDPOINTALSOBEINGTHEPOINTOFBEGINNINGOFTHEPARCELOFLANDHEREINDESCRIBEDTHENCERUNNORTH0003256EASTALONGSAIDEASTRIGHTOFWAYLINEFORADISTANCEOF33485FEETTHENCERUNNORTH8r1755EASTFORADISTANCEOF123758FEET THENCE RUN SOUTH 00031 41 WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 335 16 FEET THENCE RUN SOUTH 8r18 49 WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 1 237 68 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING CONTAINING 9 503 ACRES MORE OR LESS Exhibits A E Rev 12 lO 13 09 doc Page 10 AR 12773 GTCPUD 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) EXHIBIT EFORGOODTURNCENTER MPUDLISTOFDEVELOPERCOMMITMENTSRegulationsfordevelopmentoftheGoodTurnCenterMPUDshall be in accordance with thecontentsofthisMPUDDocumentandapplicablesectionsoftheLDCandGrowthManagementPlanGMPineffectatthetimeofissuanceofanydevelopmentordertowhichsaidregulationsrelateWherethisMPUDOrdinancedoesnotprovidedevelopmentstandardsthentheprovisionsofthespecificsectionsoftheLDCthatareotherwiseapplicableshallapply1TRANSPORTATION A The owner agrees to contribute its fair share toward the following intersections with planned improvements that are within the developments significant impacts a Rattlesnake Hammock at Collier Boulevard b Collier Boulevard at Davis Blvd c Rattlesnake Hammock at Grand Lely Drive d Rattlesnake Hammock at PollyAvenueAllfairsharepaymentsshallbecompletedpriortotheissuanceofthefirst certificate of occupancy B The Good Turn Center MPUD shall share access to CR 951 with the Hammock Park Commerce Centre PUD C Any combination of uses listed in Exhibit A of this document may be proposed within this development but shall be limited to a maximum combined weekday p m peakhourtripgenerationof626totalprojecttripsupto478netnewexternaltrips 2 PLANNING A The Good Turn Center MPUD will have an integrated and common buildingarchitecturalstyleWheremultiplebuildingsareconstructedwithintheMPUDall buildings shall be constructed using like exterior building materials and color palate B The developer its successors or assignee shall provide to any potential resident a disclosure statement with respect to the noise that is associated with the SwampBuggyRaceslocatedat8250CollierBoulevardNaplesFLandthelocationofthis CPUD to that establishment The statement must be presented to the potential buyer prior to entering into any sales contract Exhibits A E Rev 12 10 13 09 doc Page 11 AR 12773 GTCPUD I I iJ 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) STATE OF FLORIDACOUNTYOFCOLLIERIDWIGHTE BROCK Clerk of Courts in and for theTwentiethJudicialCircuitCollierCountyFloridado hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of ORDINANCE 2009 53 Which was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on the 13th day of October 2009 during Regular Session WITNESS my hand and the official seal of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County Florida this 16th day of October 2009 DWIGHT E BROCK Clerk of Courts nfA rk Ex officio to B tG Ot 2 County commlS r jl t@t JLTeresaPolasW l Deputy Clerk t 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) 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: PL20210003228 ‐ Good Turn Center MPUD Amendment In compliance with the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) requirements, a neighborhood meeting hosted by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., representing Sparrow Acquisitions, LLC (Applicant) will be held March 8, 2022, 5:30 pm at South Regional Library, Meeting Room A, 8065 Lely Cultural Parkway, Naples, FL 34113. Sparrow Acquisitions, LLC submitted a formal application to Collier County seeking approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) amendment to the Good Turn Center MPUD. The PUD amendment proposes to revise PUD Ordinance 2009‐53 to modify Table I, Development Standards, by removing “3 stories over parking not to exceed” reference listed under “Maximum Height”. The development standards table will be revised to increase the zoned height of 45 feet to 55 feet and actual height of 55 feet to 65 feet. The Good Turn Center MPUD is comprised of 9.5± acres, located on the east side of Collier Boulevard, north of Rattlesnake Hammock Road in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. If you have questions or comments, contact Sharon Umpenhour with GradyMinor by email: sumpenhour@gradyminor.com or phone: 239‐947‐1144. For project information or to register to participate remotely* go to, gradyminor.com/Planning. Any information provided is subject to change until final approval by the governing authority. The Neighborhood Information Meeting is for informational purposes, it is not a public hearing. *Remote participation is provided as a courtesy and is at the user’s risk. The applicant and GradyMinor are not responsible for technical issues. The Collier County Public Library does not sponsor or endorse this program. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) 1NAME1 NAME2 NAME3 NAME4 NAME5 NAME6 LEGAL1 LEGAL2 LEGAL3 LEGAL4 FOLIO ADDRESSTYPE8615 COLLIER-RATTLESNAKE LLC 900 SW PINE ISLAND RD STE 202 CAPE CORAL, FL 33991---0 NAPLES LAKES SHOPPING CENTER TRACT B, LESS THAT PORTIO AS DESC IN OR 4277 PG 3958 62030900228 UAMERISITE LLC 3295 FORT CHARLES DR NAPLES, FL 34102---7924 14 50 26 N1/2 OF N1/2 OF N1/2 OF SW1/4 OF SW1/4, LES W 100FT FOR R/W 00416800001 UAMERISITE LLC 3295 FORT CHARLES DR NAPLES, FL 34102---7924 14-50-26 S1/2 OF N1/2 OF N1/2 OF SW1/4 OF SW1/4, LESS W 100FT FOR R/W, OR 741 PG 1074 00417720009 UAMERISITE LLC 3295 FORT CHARLES DR NAPLES, FL 34102---7924 14 50 26 S1/2 OF S1/2 OF NW1/4 OF SW1/4 LESS R/W 9.24 AC OR 1098 PG 18100418200007 UCARMAN DRIVE 15 LLC 7742 ALICO RDFORT MYERS, FL 33912---0 14 50 26 E1/2 OF N1/2 OF SE1/4 OF SW1/4 AND S1/2 OF W1/2 OF N1/2 OF SE1/4 OF SW1/4 00417000004 UCOLLIER CNTY TRANSPORTATION RIGHT-OF-WAY 2885 HORSESHOE DRIVE S NAPLES, FL 34104---0 NAPLES LAKES SHOPPING CENTER THAT PORTION OF TRACT B AS DESC IN OR 4277 PG 3958 62030900231 UCOLLIER RATTLESNAKE LLC 801 ANCHOR RODE DR #206 NAPLES, FL 34103---0 14 50 26 S1/2 OF N1/2 OF SW1/4 OF SW1/4, LESS W 100FT 9.24 AC OR 1768 PG 701 00417400002 UDJAG 8625 LLC 8625 COLLIER BLVD NAPLES, FL 34112---0 NAPLES LAKES SHOPPING CENTER TRACT C & SLY 5 FT OF TR D, LESS THAT PORTION OF R/W AS DESC IN OR 4315 PG 8 62030900260 UFLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO PROPERTY TAX-PSX/JB 700 UNIVERSE BLVD JUNO BEACH, FL 33408---2657 14 50 26 N1/2 OF W1/2 OF N1/2 OF SE1/4 OF SW1/400418400603 UFREP IVNAPLES LAKE VILLAGE LLC 2501 S MACDILL AVE TAMPA, FL 33629---0 NAPLES LAKES SHOPPING CENTER TRACT A LESS THAT PORTION OF R/W AS DESC IN OR 4316 PG 695 62030900024 UHAMMOCK PARK APARTMENTS 7742 ALICO ROAD FT MYERS, FL 33912---0 14 50 26 S1/2 OF SW1/4 OF SW1/4 LESS R/W, AND W80FT OF S1/2 OF SE1/4 OF SW1/4, LESS THAT PORTION FOR R/W AS DESC 00416720000 ULAKE MICHIGAN CREDIT UNION PO BOX 2848GRAND RAPIDS, MI 49501---0 NAPLES LAKES SHOPPING CENTER TRACT D LESS S 5FT62030900325 ULORDS WAY 30 LLC 7742 ALICO RDFT MYERS, FL 33192---0 ESTILO ACRES TRACT P-131374000145 UMATSON III, DUFFIELD W & SARAH 4960 SUNSET DRMIAMI, FL 33143---0 14 50 26 W1/2 OF W1/2 OF NE1/4 OF SW1/4 10.00 AC OR 1496 PG 1817 00418400001 UNAPLES LAKES COMM PROP LLC 2501 S MACDILL AVE TAMPA, FL 33629---0 NAPLES LAKES SHOPPING CENTER TRACT F62030900422 UNAPLES LAKES COMM PROP LLC 2501 S MACDILL AVE TAMPA, FL 33629---0 NAPLES LAKES SHOPPING CENTER TRACT G62030900448 UNAPLES LAKES COMM PROP LLC 2501 S MACDILL AVE TAMPA, FL 33629---0 NAPLES LAKES SHOPPING CENTER TRACT R-1 LESS THAT PORTION OF R/W AS DESC IN OR 4316 PG 695 62030900503 UNAPLES LAKES COUNTRY CLUB HOMEOWNERS ASSOC INC 4784 NAPLES LAKES BLVD NAPLES, FL 34112---0 NAPLES LAKES COUNTRY CLUB LANDSCAPE BUFFER TRACT LESS OR 3214 PG 461(RW RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK RD) 62030000380 UNAPLES LKS COUNTRY CLUB HOMEOWNERS ASSOC INC 4784 NAPLES LAKES BLVD NAPLES, FL 34112---0 NAPLES LAKES COUNTRY CLUB FUTURE DEVELOPMENT LESS NAPLES LAKES COUNTRY CLUB UNIT 2 LESS OR 3214 PG 461 RW RATTLESNAKE 62030000283 UTRACT L DEVELOPMENT LLC 7742 ALICO ROAD FORT MYERS, FL 33912---0 14 50 26 S1/2 OF SE1/4 OF SW1/4 LESS W 80 FT, LESS R/W AS DESC IN OR 5201 PG 2138 00417760001 UNotice: 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: PL20210002184 | Buffer: 500' | Date: 10/18/2021 | Site Location: 00417400002POList_500.xls9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 206Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) PL20210003228_Good Turn MPUD March 8 2022 NIM Transcript Page 1 of 5 Wayne Arnold: All right. Good evening, I’m Wayne Arnold with Grady Minor and Associates. This is Sharon Umpenhour, also with GradyMinor, and we’re here to conduct the neighborhood information meeting for Good Turn Center. We’re making a minor change to that project. In the audience is Gabriela Castro, she’s with Collier County government and is working on this application from the county. So, we’re here for a required neighborhood information meeting. The county makes us hold a informational meeting before we can proceed to a planning commission and board county commissioner hearing. So, we’re here because we’re making a change to the Good Turn Center development standards. The project permit is approved for 45’ height limit and three stories. We’re asking to remove the number of stories and establish a zone and an actual height, which is the method the county currently uses to establish heights. And I’ll go through that a little bit more in a minute. So, on the screen I have the location exhibit and you can see highlighted on the right-hand side of the screen is in yellow labeled Good Turn Center is the subject property. [00:01:02] So, it’s on the east side of Collier Blvd just north of Rattlesnake Hammock Road. It’s in the Activity Center and allows for a whole host of commercial uses as well as the Senior housing use over here to change the development standard for tonight. Um, you can see to the west is your neighborhood center closer where you reside and then to our north and south nothing’s been developed yet, but part of it’s part of the Hacienda Lakes project and it’s going to developed for a variety of housing. Um, the First Assembly Ministries property was recently acquired by them as well and it’s going to be redeveloped. So, we’re here on a vacant leased property. We rezoned this originally back in 2009 and included the 200 units of senior housing. We didn’t have an end user, today we do. Sparrow Properties that are looking to develop it, and their prototype is a four story senior housing product. [00:02:00] So, this is the current masterplan for the site. You can see it’s just labeled C and CF. That stands for commercial and community facility, which is the senior housing portion of this. It’s allowed throughout the site. There’s a small wetland on the center of the site that we’re working around. The revised masterplan really doesn’t change other than we added the building height limitation of 45 zone height, 55’ actual height on the masterplan itself. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) PL20210003228_Good Turn MPUD March 8 2022 NIM Transcript Page 2 of 5 This is the development table that’s in the existing document today. You can see I’ve highlighted in yellow; it sets the zone height three stories over parking not to exceed 45’ with an actual height of three stories over parking not to exceed 55’. We’re asking to modify that to strike the references to three stories over parking not to exceed 45’ and replacing that with a maximum height of 55’ for zone and an actual height of 65’. [00:03:07] Which would allow Sparrow to develop a four-story product. This is an example of their conceptual architecture and building elevation for the front of the building. And you can see that that is a four-story product, and it features a porte cochere and surface parking that’s visible in – in that image. And you can see to the rear of the image that there’s also, it’s gonna be shaped like a – a U, to take advantage of the one wetland area that needs to be retained. It's a little in more of a U-shape around that wetland area. In a nutshell that’s really the simplicity of our change. We don’t have a hearing date yet, but if you received notice for this meeting, you will receive a notice for the planning commission public hearing once it’s scheduled. You’ll also see the public hearing signs that you’ve commonly seen around town. The four by eight sheets of plywood with public hearing notice information on them. [00:04:03] Those will be posted on the site prior to the planning commission hearing. And then of course that will be followed by the board of county commissioners public hearing. Roger Lawson: [inaudible] [00:04:10] Ingress and egress would be on 951. Wayne Arnold: Ingress and egress is only on Collier Blvd and it’s going to through the shared access bridge that’s going to be developed on the property to the south. There – there’s a bridge that will be established there and we’ll be accessing the property for the joint shared bridge. We have a couple of zoom participants. Anybody on zoom have a question? You can unmute and feel free to ask that. Anything, Sharon? No? Roger Lawson: And what we gonna attract further south of this. Um, do you know what that is? Wayne Arnold: I don’t know exactly. I know it was approved as a mixed-use project that will include some commercial and some residential, but I don’t know anything about it. Specifically, we’re not working on it. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) PL20210003228_Good Turn MPUD March 8 2022 NIM Transcript Page 3 of 5 [00:05:01] But this parcel of about 9.5 acres, parcels immediately to the north are also zoned commercial. Roger Lawson: And the board’s way, they’re going to have, what, 200 or 300 townhomes in that area as I – I understand that they… Wayne Arnold: Yeah, I’m not certain on a number of units that they’re looking at. Roger Lawson: I think it’s 300 as I recall. Wayne Arnold: But yes, the Lord’s Way is shown to the north. It’s under development with several homes and then a parking complex up there as well. And then, farther to the east, it’s all part of Hacienda Lakes and northern swamp buggy would either be more [inaudible – crosstalk] [00:05:43]. Roger Lawson: I’m talking about going west over in the vacant areas all supposed to be townhomes. Wayne Arnold: Oh, okay. That I’m not certain of, but this project would be 200 senior housing units that we’re talking about changing the heights for. Roger Lawson: Two hundred, sir? Wayne Arnold: Yes, a maximum of 200, I should say. [00:06:01] Anybody on zoom wanna ask a question yet? Do you have any other questions, comments? You got a copy of the presentation. A lot more information is available – [Crosstalk] Roger Lawson: Appreciate that. Wayne Arnold: – on our website, and I’ll go back to the last slide. It’s got some contact information for Sharon; it’s got Gabriela’s information on there as well. Is there any way we can take the conclusion slide off the, out of the middle of the screen? Just so we can share contact info. But yeah, if you have any other questions, I mean, this is, in circulating through the process I’m assuming we’ll probably have a public hearing on this in the next maybe next six weeks if we’re fortunate. I don’t know, Gabby, do you think… Gabriela Castro: I know there’s stuff in April, but I don’t know if it’s full yet, so. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) PL20210003228_Good Turn MPUD March 8 2022 NIM Transcript Page 4 of 5 Wayne Arnold: Okay. Gabriela Castro: And I don’t what the deadline would be. Wayne Arnold: Right, I know. Gabriela Castro: What it corresponds with… Wayne Arnold: Could be April or May timeframe. Gabriela Castro: Yeah. Wayne Arnold: But anyway, I’m happy to answer any questions if you think of something after you leave here tonight, just feel free to give Sharon or me a call and we’ll be happy to get you– [00:07:01] Sharon Umpenhour: I have a question on zoom. Wayne Arnold: Okay. Sharon Umpenhour: Is the senior housing development the only housing that is scheduled to be on this property? Wayne Arnold: Yes, it’s the only residential that’s allowed on the property. It either allows commercial or community facility uses, and community facility uses include things like senior housing. Roger Lawson: Is there an income limitation on, or is there any – Wayne Arnold: No, there’s no income limitation. These are just market rate senior housing. Anything else before we adjourn? Roger Lawson: You made it very easy. Wayne Arnold: Thanks for taking time to come out. Like I said, feel free, you know how to reach us so, feel free to do so. Roger Lawson: Absolutely. Wayne Arnold: All right. If not, we’re gonna adjourn. Sharon, anything else? Sharon Umpenhour: I just asked if they have any other questions on zoom. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) PL20210003228_Good Turn MPUD March 8 2022 NIM Transcript Page 5 of 5 Wayne Arnold: Okay. [00:08:00] Sharon: And I’m not seeing any. Wayne Arnold: Okay, well with that, meeting is adjourned. Thanks everybody for participating. Roger Lawson: Thank you so much. [End of Audio] Duration: 9 minutes 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) www.gradyminor.com/Planning PETITION:PL20210003228 –GOOD TURN CENTER MPUD AMENDMENT March 8, 2022 Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) Project information and a copy of this presentation can be found on our website: 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PROJECT TEAM: •Sparrow Acquisitions, LLC–Applicant •D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, Professional Planner –Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. •Michael J. Delate, P.E., Professional Engineer –Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. *Please note, all information provided is subject to change until final approval by the governing authority. INTRODUCTION 2 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center LOCATION MAP 3 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center Current Zoning:Good Turn Center MPUD Proposed Zoning:Good Turn Center MPUD Project Acreage:9.5+/- Proposed Request: Modify Exhibit C,Master Plan and Table I,Development Standards,by removing “3 stories over parking not to exceed”reference listed under “Maximum Height”and increase the existing zoned height of 45 feet to 55 feet and actual height of 55 feet to 65 feet. PROJECT INFORMATION 4 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center APPROVED MASTER PLAN 5 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PROPOSED MASTER PLAN 6 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center APPROVED TABLE I 7 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PROPOSED TABLE I 8 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center CONCEPTUAL RENDERING 9 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center CONCLUSION Documents and information can be found online: •Gradyminor.com/Planning •Collier County GMD Public Portal: cvportal.colliercountyfl.gov/CityViewWeb Next Steps •Hearing sign(s) posted on property advertising Hearing Examiner (HEX) meeting date. •CCPC –TBD •BCC -TBD Contact: •Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A.: Sharon Umpenhour, Senior Planning Technician; sumpenhour@gradyminor.com or 239.947.1144 extension 1249 •Collier County Staff: Gabriela Castro, AICP, Principal Planner; Gabriela.Castro@colliercountyfl.gov or (239) 252-4211 10 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: D PL20210003228 CCPC Backup (21988 : PL20210003228 Good Turn Center PUDA) 05/19/2022 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.2 Item Summary: PL20210000623 - Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA - An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 89-05, as amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, specifically amending the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and map series to create the Carman Drive Subdistrict by changing the designation of property from Urban, Urban-Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict to Urban, Urban-Mixed Use District, Carman Drive Subdistrict to allow up to 212 rental dwelling units of which 42 units will be affordable housing and rent restricted. The subject property is located at 8496 Rattlesnake Hammock Road, north of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and west of Carman Drive in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 15.41± acres; and furthermore, directing transmittal of the adopted amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity; providing for severability and providing for an effective date. (Companion to RPUD-PL20210000623) [Coordinator: Michele Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner] Meeting Date: 05/19/2022 Prepared by: Title: Planner, Principal – Zoning Name: Michele Mosca 05/02/2022 5:22 PM Submitted by: Title: – Zoning Name: Mike Bosi 05/02/2022 5:22 PM Approved By: Review: Planning Commission Diane Lynch Review item Completed 05/02/2022 8:14 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 05/03/2022 11:28 AM Zoning James Sabo Additional Reviewer Completed 05/06/2022 12:04 PM Zoning Mike Bosi Zoning Director Review Completed 05/06/2022 1:18 PM Growth Management Department Mike Bosi GMD Deputy Dept Head Completed 05/06/2022 1:19 PM Planning Commission Ray Bellows Meeting Pending 05/19/2022 9:00 AM 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 226 Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 1 of 15 STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT/ZONING DIVISION, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION HEARING DATE: May 19, 2022 RE: PETITION PL20210000623, SMALL SCALE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT (Companion to RPUD-PL20210000624) [ADOPTION HEARING] ELEMENT: FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT (FLUE) AGENT/APPLICANT/OWNER(S): Agents: Alexis Crespo, AICP RVI Planning + Landscaping Architecture (formerly Waldrop Eng.) 28100 Bonita Grande Drive, Ste. 305 Bonita Springs, FL 34145 and Richard Yovanovich, Esq. Coleman Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Ste. 300 Naples, FL 34103 Applicant: David Torres 7742 Alico Road Fort Myers, FL 33912 Owner: Carman Drive 15, LLC 7742 Alico Road Fort Myers, FL 33912 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: CCPC Staff Report _Carmen Drive 15 (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 2 of 15 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property, a ±15.41-acre parcel, is located north of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and west of Carman Drive, in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, within the Rural Fakapalm Planning Community (see subject site below). REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant proposes a small-scale Growth Management Plan amendment to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and Future Land Use Map (FLUM), specifically to establish the new Carman Drive Subdistrict, affecting approximately 15.41 acres, by: 1) Amending Policy 1.5 A. Urban – Mixed Use District, to add the Carman Drive Subdistrict; 2) Amending the Urban – Mixed Use District to add the new Subdistrict provisions; 3) Amending the Future Land Use Map Series listing to add the title of the new Subdistrict map; and 4) Amending the Future Land Use Map to depict the new Subdistrict; and adding a new Future Land Use Map Series map that depicts the new Subdistrict. The proposed amended/added text and maps are depicted on the Ordinance Exhibit A. PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The petitioner is requesting a Growth Management Plan Amendment to create text and a map for a new residential Subdistrict (Carman Drive Subdistrict). The amendment is necessary in order to allow residential development of up to 212 rental dwelling units and related accessory uses, of which 42 dwelling units will be affordable housing units for persons earning >80% - <120% of the Area Median Income (2021 Collier County AMI - $84,300), at a density of 13.76 dwelling units per acre (DU/A). (Note: The 2022 Income Limits and Rent Limits Table, effective 4/18/22, is included in the attachments. The Staff Report was substantially complete when this was r eceived; there was not time to reevaluate the petition and revise the Staff Report. However, based on the increase in the AMI, there appears to be greater need for affordable housing in the 80% and below income categories.) Project Site 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: CCPC Staff Report _Carmen Drive 15 (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 3 of 15 SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION: Subject Property: The +15.41-acre subject site is undeveloped, zoned “A”, Rural Agricultural District, and the Future Land Use designation as shown on the Future Land Use Map is Urban, Urban Mixed Use District, Residential Fringe Subdistrict. Surrounding Land Uses: North: Immediately adjacent to the north is a 150-foot-wide sparse preserve then single- story residential single-family units, zoned Lords Way 30 Acre (PUD) at a density of 2.5 DU/A, and designated Urban, Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict on the FLUM. South: Immediately to the south is an undeveloped tract, zoned McMullen Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD), approved for a maximum intensity of 185,000 square feet of primarily C-5 commercial uses, medical uses, and Senior Housing at 0.60 FAR, and designated Urban, Urban Commercial District, Mixed Use Activity Center (MUAC) Subdistrict on the FLUM and on the Activity Center #7 map. West: Immediately adjacent to the west is a Florida Power and Light substation, zoned A, Rural Agricultural zoning district, and designated Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict; and, an undeveloped tract, zoned Good Turn Center (MPUD), approved for 100,000 square feet of retail, office and personal services and a skilled nursing facility (200 units), and designated Urban, Urban Commercial District, MUAC Subdistrict on the FLUM and on the Activity Center #7 map. West-NW Immediately west-northwest are undeveloped tracts, zoned General Commercial (C-4), with use limitations per Ord. No. 14-28, and designated Urban, Urban Commercial District, Mixed Use Activity Center (MUAC) Subdistrict on the FLUM and on Activity Center #7 map. This site is the subject of a proposed GMPA and PUDZ (Amerisite CB MPUD) to allow up to 303 multi-family units (rental or ownership at 16 DU/A), retain existing C-4 uses, and add gasoline service station use and truck rental up to 40 trucks The proposed GMPA and PUDZ petitions are scheduled for the June 2, 2022, CCPC meeting. East: Immediately adjacent to the east are two developed tracts – Florida Sports Park (f.k.a. Swamp Buggy Days (PUD) and Junior Deputy League – zoned Hacienda Lakes (MPUD), and designated Urban, Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict on the FLUM. Identification and Analysis of the Pertinent Small-Scale Comprehensive Plan (GMP) Amendment Criteria in Florida Statutes, Chapter 163.3187: Process for adoption of small-scale comprehensive plan amendment, followed by staff analysis in bracketed bold text. (1) A small scale development amendment may be adopted under the following conditions: (a) The proposed amendment involves a use of 50 acres or fewer. [The proposed amendment pertains to a 15.41-acre site.] 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: CCPC Staff Report _Carmen Drive 15 (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 4 of 15 (b) The proposed amendment does not involve a text change to the goals, policies, and objectives of the local government’s comprehensive plan, but only proposes a land use change to the future land use map for a site-specific small scale development activity. However, text changes that relate directly to, and are adopted simultaneously with, the small scale future land use map amendment shall be permissible under this section. [This amendment is for a site-specific Future Land Use Map change and directly related text change.] (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 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. [Internal consistency will be maintained if the GMP amendment is approved.] Background and Considerations: The subject site is located within the Urban, Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Fringe (URF) Subdistrict. The URF is located in the eastern portion of the County’s Coastal Urban area, generally located south of Beck Boulevard and extends along Collier Boulevard to US 41, and largely includes those lands located 1-mile east of Collier Boulevard, as delineated on the Future Land Use Map. The lands within the URF were evaluated as part of the Urban Boundary Study in the late 1980s in preparation of the County’s Growth Management Plan, adopted in 1989. The Study concluded that the URF lacked the necessary public facilities for urban development – water and sewer, roads, and water management infrastructure, etc. – and the area was subject to high hurricane risk. The lands within the URF have historically provided a transition from the urban area/uses to the west (generally allowing residential uses at 4 DU/A or higher and urban support uses) to the rural agricultural lands/uses to the east (predominately designated Agricultural Rural, Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Sending Lands, and within the Belle Meade Natural Resource Protection Area – allowing residential uses at a density of 1 DU/40 acres). The subject property is one of many parcels/PUDs remaining in the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict to be developed. Proximate to the subject site there are several undeveloped and developing PUDS; and four undeveloped parcels (3 – 9.24-acre parcels and 1 – 10-acre parcel) located north and west of the site within ¼ mile, which are designated URF and zoned Rural Agricultural District. The density and intensity of uses currently allowed on the subject site, consistent with the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict FLUM designation, include residential uses (at a density of 1.5 DU/A or 2.5 DU/A with use of TDRs, Transfer of Development Rights Credits) and non-residential uses, such as an assisted living facility, church, childcare center, essential service uses, etc. The parcel directly to the north is the Lord’s Way 30-Acre PUD, developed with single family residential uses at a density of 2.5 DU/A (75 DUs); south of the site is an undeveloped MPUD within the Mixed Use Activity Center #7 that allows C-5 commercial uses and senior housing; east is an “Activity” tract – Florida Sports Park and “Junior Deputy” tract within the Hacienda Lakes MPUD (.78 DU/A); and, west is the MUAC #7 with a mix of commercial intensities ranging from office, retail and restaurant use, personal services, and other uses of the C-4 commercial zoning district, with limitations, and residential multi-family rental units within the Hammock Park Commerce Centre MPUD at a density of 13.85 DU/A (265 MFDUs). Properties adjacent to MUAC are intended to transition from the higher intensity uses allowed there to lower intensity uses. The density and intensity of uses currently allowed on the subject site, consistent with the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict FLUM designation, include residential uses (at a 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: CCPC Staff Report _Carmen Drive 15 (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 5 of 15 density of 1.5 DU/A or 2.5 DU/A with use of TDRs, Transfer of Development Rights Credits) and non-residential uses, such as an assisted living facility, church, childcare center, essential service uses, etc. The applicant proposes to create a new Subdistrict to allow residential rental development at a density of 13.76 dwelling units per acre (212 units). The maximum allowable density that could be achieved on this site through the acquisition and redemption of Transfer of Development Rights Credits is 2.5 dwelling units per acre (38 DUs). The proposed text for the new Subdistrict allows these dwelling units at a maximum height of 55 feet (actual). Residential density, affordable housing, and compatibility (including appropriateness of the location) for this project are identified by staff as the main areas of concern to address. Density: This petitioner is proposing 212 residential rental units with forty-two (42) rent restricted units. Staff reviewed FLUE provisions to determine residential density eligibility for the site. Residential density within the Urban Mixed Use District, Residential Fringe Subdistrict is limited to (capped at) 2.5 dwelling units/acre. As identified below, the maximum density of 2.5 dwelling units per acre can be achieved with the base density and the acquisition and redemption of Transfer of Development Rights Credits; the applicant has committed to provide 15 TDR Credits. Base Density: 1.5 dwelling units/acre (1.5 DU X 15.41 acres = 23.12 DUs) Additional Density Allowance: Transfer of Development Rights Credits 1.0 dwelling units/acre (1.0 DU X 15.41 acres = 15 DUs) Maximum Permitted Density: 2.5 dwelling units/acre (23 DU + 15 DU = 38 Total Dwelling Units) The requested 212 DUs is a density of 13.76 DU/A (212 DU / 15.41 Acres = 13.76 DU/A), which is approximately 11.29 DU/A higher than that allowed within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict. 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: CCPC Staff Report _Carmen Drive 15 (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 6 of 15 Additionally, the requested density exceeds the immediately surrounding project densities and other developments within the URF, except for the Hammock Park Commerce Centre, located within the MUAC #7, which has an approved density of 13.85 DU/A (via prior GMPA approval). Please see below table of surrounding uses. Proposed Site North South East West West Project Name Carman Drive Lords Way (Sapphire Cove) McMullen Hacienda Lakes Good Turn Center FPL Density 13.76 DU/A 2.5 DU/A N/A 0.78 N/A N/A Land Use Residential Rental 212 DUs Single Family Residential 75 DUs Commercial (185,000 SF - mostly C-5 uses, medical uses, Senior Housing at 0.60 FAR) Swamp Buggy & Junior Deputy (Residential Density within Hacienda – 0.78 DU/A Commercial (retail, ofc, personal svc - 100,000 SF); skilled nursing facility (200 units) Essential Service Use Zoning A RPUD MPUD MPUD MPUD A Because this is a request for a new Subdistrict, it is not limited by the Future Land Use designation, the petitioner may request 13.76 DU/A (or any other density). Affordable Housing: The proposed project of 212 residential rental units includes a commitment to provide 42 DUs (20% of the total units) for those individuals earning >80% to <120% of Area Median Income (AMI). There is a need in Collier County for additional housing within all affordable housing income levels; however, projects typically do not commit to the lower income levels of affordability. Many of the rental projects approved over the last few years through the public hearing process that included affordable housing commitments were for higher income levels, typically housing in excess of 100% AMI. 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: CCPC Staff Report _Carmen Drive 15 (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 7 of 15 Please see below table depicting 2021 Collier County Affordable Housing income information. (Note: The 2022 Income Limits and Rent Limits Table, effective 4/18/22, is included in the attachments.) Median Household Income Collier County 2021 = $84,300 The below table identifies market rate rental units in the vicinity of the subject project. The project commitment to provide 42 affordable housing units at the >80% to <120% of the AMI range would potentially place those affordable housing units in rental ranges consistent with some of the nearby market rate rents (see Aster and Advenir Apartment listings below). The requested increase in density from the allowed 2.5 DU/A (38 dwelling units) to 13.76 DU/A (212 dwelling units) yields 174 “bonus” units. A minimum of 42 DUs of the total 212 DUs will be affordable in the “Moderate” AMI range and the remaining 170 units are eligible as market rate rental units. Apartment Name Address Rents by Number of Bedrooms 1 2 3 Milano Lakes 3713 Milano Lakes Cir., Naples 34113 $2,044 $2,523 $3,153 Sierra Grande 6975 Sierra Club Cir., Naples 34113 $2,104 $2,368 $2,874 Inspira Apartments 7425 Inspira Cir., Naples 34113 $2,218 $2,665 $2,984 Aster @ Lely Resort 8120 Acacia Street, Naples 34113 $1,913 $2,386 $2,994 Advenir 9300 Marino Cir., Naples 34114 $1,945 $2,285 $2,735 Source: Website of the listed apartments (4/21/22) 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: CCPC Staff Report _Carmen Drive 15 (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 8 of 15 The 2021 Collier County Housing Demand Model (see below and Exhibit attachment in large print) identifies a shortage of available rental units in the Low (>50 - <80%), Very Low (>30 - <50%) and Extremely Low (less than 30%) categories. The demand for rental units in these 3 categories is 500+ units needed annually to serve the County’s growing population. Affordable Housing Program: The FLUE provides an affordable housing density bonus (AHDB) for up to an additional 12 DU/A under the Density Rating System for properties within the Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict and Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict, subject to Land Development Code Section 2.06.00. The subject project is within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict and, therefore, is not eligible to receive the affordable housing density bonus. However, an alternative would be for the petitioner to amend the GMPA to provide for the AHDB to be applicable to the subject site. LDC 2.06.03: Affordable Housing Density Bonus (AHDB) Rating System 1 Total Allowable Density = Base Density + Affordable Housing Density Bonus. In no event shall the maximum gross density exceed that which is allowed pursuant to the GMP. 2 Developments with percentages of affordable housing units which fall in between the percentages shown on Table A shall receiv e an AHDB equal to the lower of the two percentages it lies between, plus 1/10 of a residential dwelling unit per gross acre for each additional percentage of af fordable housing units in the development. Maximum Allowable Density Bonus by Percent of Development Designated as Affordable Housing 1, 2, 3 Product (% of MI) 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Gap (>120—≤140) 4, 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 n/a n/a Moderate (>80—≤120) 4 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Low (>50—≤80) 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 12 12 Very-Low (≤50) 7 8 9 10 11 12 12 12 12 12 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: CCPC Staff Report _Carmen Drive 15 (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 9 of 15 3 Where more than one type of affordable housing unit (based on level of income shown above) is proposed for a development, the AHDB for each type shall be calculated separately. After the AHDB calculations for each type of affordable housing unit have been completed, the AHDB for each type of unit shall be added to those for the other type(s) to determine the maximum AHDB available for the development. In no event shall the AHDB exceed 12 dwelling units per gross acre. 4 Owner-occupied only. 5 May only be used in conjunction with at least 20% at or below 120% MI. Proposed project calculations if eligible for the AHDB per the LDC: Base Density 23 dwelling units (1.5 DU/A X 15.41 Acres) TDR Density Bonus 15 dwelling units (1.0 DU/A X 15.41 Acres) Base + TDR Bonus 38 dwelling units AHDB of 11.29 DU/A 174 dwelling units (15.41 acres X 11.29 DU/A) Total 212 dwelling units The request for +11.29 DU/A density bonus for rental units would require over 70% of the total units to be affordable at the 50-80% AMI range; moderate (>80 - <120% AMI) would require 90% of units to be affordable and owner occupied. Note: AHDB for rental units are allowed only in the Low and Very-Low categories. Compatibility: FLUE Policy 5.6 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, a compatibility analysis might include a review of the subject proposal comparing it to surrounding properties as to the 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. There are commercial and residential uses in the area surrounding the proposed Subdistrict. The properties to the west and south are located within a Mixed Use Activity Center with a full range of commercial uses and intensities – including office, retail, personal services, and higher intensity C-4 and C-5 uses, with limitations. The FLUE encourages development to transition from higher intensities to lower intensities. Use intensities should diminish as development moves from the commercial lands to the west towards the project site. One purpose of the transition of uses is to ensure that residential developments are not located next to high intensity uses. The proposed residential use and related uses within this Subdistrict help produce this type of transition; however, the density proposed at 13.76 DU/A along with the zoned building height of 45’ (55’ actual), increases the use intensity of the site. A challenge to developing a higher density residential rental community, such as the one proposed, is the protection of living conditions for the adjacent community, especially preserving the residential character, privacy, and access to natural light. To ensure this community is not significantly impacted, appropriate setbacks, screening, and buffers should be established. It should be noted that the preserve on the adjacent site to the north has minimal vegetation and will likely provide very little buffering or screening from the proposed project. 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: CCPC Staff Report _Carmen Drive 15 (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 10 of 15 Potential impacts from the proposed development adjacent to the single-story, lower density, community to the north will likely be from two sources – ground level impacts, such as vehicular movement, parking, and other development related services, e.g., deliveries and waste collections; and upper-level impacts that affect natural light, privacy, noise and visual quality. Potential impacts from the ground level are typically addressed with screening, which may include a solid masonry wall with mature trees that are in excess of two-stories – 20 to 25 feet tall. Trees at this height (of the appropriate species) can screen views into and from area residences ’ windows. Potential impacts from upper-level units, such as loss of privacy, may be mitigated with greater separation between buildings on the project site and the adjacent single-family residences. Planning principles indicate a greater building setback with substantial screening with mature trees would be needed to address privacy issues within the adjacent community, and without enhanced screening the building setback should be significantly greater. Compatibility can be more specifically addressed at time of zoning, and may include building height and size limitations, setback, and buffer requirements, etc. Staff requested line of sight renderings be provided in the project submittal package and presented at the NIM, but the petitioner did not provide or present to the community the requested renderings. Note: There is a companion zoning petition to this GMP amendment petition. Justifications for Proposed Amendment: The petitioner states, “The Subdistrict is intended to promote affordable and workforce housing in proximity to transit, employment centers, and public infrastructure, which will serve to reduce existing trip lengths.” The firm of Real Estate Econometrics, Inc. prepared a rental apartment and detached build to rent market study for the proposed project. The firm established a Market Area of approximately 317 square miles that encompasses the entire coastal Urban area less Goodland; the entire City of Naples; three of the four Receiving Areas in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Distric t (RFMUD); roughly one-half of the Rural Golden Gate Estates; and 80-90% of the RFMUD Sending Lands. The Market Area is generally bounded: on the north by a line from Wiggins Pass easterly to Palmetto Ridge High School (PRHS); on the east by a line from PRHS to the east side of Collier Seminole State Park (CSSP), on the south by a line from CSSP to the south end of Keewaydin; and on the west by the Gulf of Mexico. This market area encompasses about 77% of the population in Collier County (291,000). The demand analysis is based on population projections for renter households by year 2025 with targeted household incomes within the 80% - 120% of the AMI of $59,085 for a single person and $84,300 for a 4-person household. The study findings conclude there is a demand for 212 rental housing units to provide a diversity of housing options, particularly market-rate workforce housing. The consultant determined that the total supply of rental units will not be adversely affect ed by adding the proposed 212 rental units to the inventory. Based on the information provided in the petitioner’s market study, staff finds many of the conclusions reached for countywide affordable housing needs reasonable. However, staff questioned the selected boundaries for this site specific GMPA, but the petitioner did not provide an explanation as to how or why the project boundaries were chosen. The petitioner’s market study identifies weighted average incomes that generally correlate to the higher income ranges proposed for affordable units (80%-120% AMI). However, there is no information as to how many employees are below these average income levels. How many employees are entry level managers? How many employees are below those averages – not 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: CCPC Staff Report _Carmen Drive 15 (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 11 of 15 management positions, e.g., line cooks, retail clerks, receptionists, etc.? While the study seems to support the requested affordability ranges based on the mean wages for the targeted occupations, it cannot be determined with certainty without more information all on employees within those categories. It appears there is a greater need for lower income levels, i.e., below 80% of AMI, than is being targeted. Because the market area is expansive there is the potential that other sites are available within the market area that are equally or even more centrally located; and that may not require a GMPA. The petitioner did not provide a comparative inventory. Environmental Impacts: No listed animal species were observed on the property; however, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) wildlife data indicate the presence of Black Bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) in the area. A black bear management plan will need to be included at PPL or SDP review. The Environmental Data indicates the subject property falls within the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Primary Florida Panther Habitat (Felis concolor coryi). Telemetry data indicates that two panthers have been recorded on-site (2013 and 2015); consultation with FWS may be required. Additionally, the property boundary intersects with an active bald eagle’s nest buffer, which will require a bald eagle management plan as part of the revie w for the site development plan and/or plat. Staff has found this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME). The project site consists of 0.96 acres of native vegetation. A minimum of 0.24 (25%) acres of preservation will be provided through an off-site mitigation land donation. Public Facilities Impacts: The project is located within the regional potable water service area and the south wastewater service area of the Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD). Water and wastewater services are readily available via an existing 8” water main and 4” force main at the northeast corner of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Carman Drive. The water main and force main are more than 200 feet from the property line; connection is encouraged but not required. Transportation Impacts: Staff reviewed the applicant’s May 4, 2021, Traffic Impact Statement for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) using the then applicable 2020 Annual Update and Inventory Reports (AUIR) and the current 2021 AUIR. 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: CCPC Staff Report _Carmen Drive 15 (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 12 of 15 According to the TIS provided with this petition, the proposed 212 residential rental development will generate a projected total of +/- 209 PM peak hour, 2-way trips on the adjacent roadway segment of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard. The trips generated by this development will occur on the following adjacent roadway network links using the both the 2020 and current 2021 AUIR: Roadway/Link # Link 2020 AUIR LOS 2021 AUIR LOS Current Peak Hour Peak Direction Volume/Peak Direction Projected P.M Peak Hour/Peak Direction Project Traffic (1) 2020 Remaining Capacity 2021 Remaining Capacity Collier Boulevard/34.0 Davis Blvd. to Rattlesnake Hammock. D D 3,000/North 27/NB 429 (2) 417 (2) Rattlesnake Hammock/75.0 Collier Boulevard to Santa Barbara B B 2,900/West 23/WB 1,988 1,949 1. Source for P.M. Peak Hour/Peak Direction Project Traffic is May 4, 2021; Traffic Impact Statement provided by the petitioner. 2. Projected deficiency in 2030 for this segment are due to background traffic from trip bank not caused by this development. Planned improvements on this segment in the 5-year work program are the funded design- build I-75 interchange and the six-lane expansion from the Golden Gate Main Canal to Green Boulevard. Based on the TIS provided by the applicant, the 2020 AUIR and the currently adopted 2021 AUIR, 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 GMP. 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. 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: CCPC Staff Report _Carmen Drive 15 (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 13 of 15 2. Data must be taken from professionally accepted sources. The application of a methodology utilized in data collection or whether a particular methodology is professionally accepted may be evaluated. However, the evaluation may not include whether one accepted methodology is better than another. Original data collection by local governments is not required. However, local governments may use original data so long as methodologies are professionally accepted. 3. The comprehensive plan shall be based upon permanent and seasonal population estimates and projections, which shall either be those published by the Office of Economic and Demographic Research or generated by the local government based upon a professionally acceptable methodology. The plan must be based on at least the minimum amount of land required to accommodate the medium projections as published by the Office of Economic and Demographic Research for at least a 10-year planning period unless otherwise limited under s. 380.05, including related rules of the Administration Commission. Absent physical limitations on population growth, population projections for each municipality, and the unincorporated area within a county must, at a minimum, be reflective of each area’s proportional share of the total county population and the total county population growth. Section 163.3177(6)(a)2.: 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. 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: CCPC Staff Report _Carmen Drive 15 (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 14 of 15 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). NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM) SYNOPSIS: A Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM), was duly advertised, noticed, and held on October 25, 2021, 5:00 p.m. at the Fairway Bible Church, 3855 The Lords Way, Naples, FL 34113. This NIM was advertised, noticed, and held jointly for this small scale GMP amendment and the companion Planned Unit Development rezone (PUDZ) petition. The applicant’s team provided introductions and gave an overview of the project. The overview generally included a discussion about the allowed uses under the existing Rural Agricultural zoning district; review of the conceptual Master Plan Exhibit (Note: The Master Plan has changed since the NIM to include the relocation of the water management tract, removal of an access point; and reconfiguration of residential tracts); and discussion about the proposed RPUD development standards. At the conclusion of the presentation, the applicant’s team provided an opportunity for questions. The public asked questions about the proposed four-story building height; distance between the Sapphire Cove development to the north and the subject site; the eagle nests in the area; maximum number of units proposed and development type; and the development timeframe. There was a total of four members of the public that attended in person and the meeting concluded at 5:50 p.m. A copy of the NIM summary and related documents are included in the back-up materials. 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 staff finds this petition to be consistent with Transportation Element Policy 5.1 regarding traffic impacts to the abutting segment of Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake Hammock Road. • There are no utility-related concerns caused by this petition. • There are no concerns regarding impacts upon other infrastructure components. • The petitioner’s market demand analysis concludes there is a demand for the proposed rental project in their market area. • The market study does not adequately address employment income for entry level professionals in the identified categories and does not address lower-income non- professional and/or non-managerial positions. • The market study does not include a comparative analysis of other potential sites within the market area that may be more appropriate to accommodate the proposed project. • Of the rental projects approved through the public hearing process over the last several years that committed to provide some Affordable Housing units, almost all such DUs were for higher affordable income levels, typically >100% of AMI. The subject petition proposes 42 out of 212 DUs for >80% - <120% of AMI (20% of the total DUs). These affordable housing rental units would be similarly rented at current market rate rents. • Based upon surrounding property approvals and development a density greater than 2.5 DU/A appears justified if the density provides a transition to address compatibility with the Sapphire Cove project north of the site, and affordable housing in the >50% - <100% AMI range is provided to greater meet the housing affordability needs in the community. 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: CCPC Staff Report _Carmen Drive 15 (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 15 of 15 • Based on permitted building heights to the north for single family residential development and the sparse nature of the preserve to the north, a building height that is similar or transitions between the two sites should be considered, and with increased setbacks and buffering from the residential development also could be justified. • The proposed density of 13.76 DU/A is significantly higher than the maximum density of 2.5 DU/A allowed by the FLUE. • The proposed density of 13.76 DU/A may be considered out of character with the density of abutting and nearby properties. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) REVIEW: This project requires Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, as the project meets the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. Specifically, the project is within the 660-foot bald eagle nest protection zone. Environmental Services staff recommends approval of the proposed petition. LEGAL REVIEW: This Staff Report was reviewed by the County Attorney’s Office on April 29, 2022. The criteria for GMP amendments to the Future Land Use Element are in Sections 163.3177(1)(f) and 163.3177(6)(a)2, Florida Statutes. [HFAC] STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PL20210000623 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of denial. Alternatively, staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PL20210000623 with a recommendation to approve for adoption and transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity and other statutorily required review agencies, subject to: 1) providing 20% of the total units (42 of 212 DUs) in the “Low” affordable housing category (>50% - <80% of the AMI); and, 2) providing 10% of the total units (21 of 212) in the “Moderate” affordable housing category, at a maximum of 100% of the AMI. 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: CCPC Staff Report _Carmen Drive 15 (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: Ordinance & Exhibit A - 041822(1) (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: Ordinance & Exhibit A - 041822(1) (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: Ordinance & Exhibit A - 041822(1) (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: Ordinance & Exhibit A - 041822(1) (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: Ordinance & Exhibit A - 041822(1) (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: Ordinance & Exhibit A - 041822(1) (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: Ordinance & Exhibit A - 041822(1) (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) CARMAN DRIVE SUBDISTRICT GMPA -PL20210000623 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION PACKAGE 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Application Form 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) 1 APPLICATION NUMBER: PL20210000623 DATE RECEIVED: ______________________________ PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE DATE: April 7, 2021 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: David Torres Company: CARMAN DRIVE 15, LLC Address: _7742 Alico Rd City: _Fort Myers State: Florida Zip Code: 33912 Phone Number: 1-877-357-8271 x700 Fax Number: N/A Email Address: David@torrescompanies.com B.Name of Agent* Alexis Crespo, AICP& Richard Yovanovich, Esq •THIS WILL BE THE PERSON CONTACTED FOR ALL BUSINESS RELATED TO THE PETITION. Company: RVi Planning + Landscape Architecture. & Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. Address: 28100 Bonita Grande Dr # 305 City: Bonita Springs State: Florida Zip Code: 34135 Phone Number: (239) 405-7777 Fax Number: (238) 405-7899 Email Address: acrespo@rviplanning.com ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com C.Name of Owner (s) of Record: _Same as applicant Address: _________________________________________________________________________ City: ___________________________ State: ___________________ Zip Code: ________ Phone Number: _______________________ Fax Number: ________________________ 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) 2 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. (please refer to 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 __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ B. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each. Name and Address Percentage of Stock __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ C. If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest. Name and Address Percentage of Interest __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) 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 David E. Torres Revocable Trust _______50%________ _ (David E. Torres Beneficiary) ____________________ George P. Bauer Revocable Trust____ ______50%_________ (George P. Bauer Beneficiary) ____________________ 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 __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ Date of Contract: __________________ F. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust. Name and Address ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ G. Date subject property acquired ( ) leased ( ): 12/29/2020 Term of lease: ______yrs./mos. If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate date of option: ______________ and date option terminates: ______________, or anticipated closing: _______________________. NOTE: 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) 4 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: 00417000004 B. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: _Please refer to Exhibit III.A. C. GENERAL LOCATION: North of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and West of Carman Drive. D. Section: 14 Township: 50 Range: 26 E. PLANNING COMMUNITY: _______________________ F. TAZ: 359 G. SIZE IN ACRES: 15.4+/- H. ZONING: Agricultural I. FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION(S): Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict J. SURROUNDING LAND USE PATTERN: Mixed Use, Commercial, Single Family Residential IV. TYPE OF REQUEST: A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN ELEMENT (S) TO BE AMENDED: ______ Housing Element ______ Recreation/Open Space ______ Traffic Circulation Sub-Element ______ Mass Transit Sub-Element ______ Aviation Sub-Element ______ Potable Water Sub-Element ______ Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element ______ NGWAR Sub-Element ______ Solid Waste Sub-Element ______ Drainage Sub-Element ______ Capital Improvement Element ______ CCME Element __X__ Future Land Use Element ______ Golden Gate Master Plan ______ Immokalee Master Plan B. AMEND PAGE (S): ____61___________OF THE: ____ Future Land Use ELEMENT AS FOLLOWS: (Use Strike-through to identify language to be deleted; Use Underline to identify language to be added). Attach additional pages if necessary: Please refer to Exhibit IV.B ____________________________________ 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) 5 C. AMEND FUTURE LAND USE MAP(S) DESIGNATION FROM: Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict_ TO Carman Drive Subdistrict_______ D. AMEND OTHER MAP(S) AND EXHIBITS AS FOLLOWS: (Name & Page #) __N/A__________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ E. DESCRIBE ADDITINAL CHANGES REQUESTED: __N/A___________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ 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). 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) 6 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 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.) ____N ____ Is the proposed amendment directly related to a proposed Small Scale Development Activity pursuant to Subsection 163.3187 (1)(c), F.S.? Does the proposed amendment create a significant impact in population which is defined as a potential increase in County-wide population by more than 5% of population projections? (Reference Capital Improvement Element Policy 1.1.2). If yes, indicate mitigation measures being proposed in conjunction with the proposed amendment. ____Y____ Does the proposed land use cause an increase in density and/or intensity to the uses permitted in a specific land use designation and district identified (commercial, industrial, etc.) or is the proposed land use a new land use designation or district? (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 IV.E Potable Water Exhibit IV.E Sanitary Sewer Exhibit IV.E Arterial & Collector Roads; Name specific road and LOS Rattlesnake Hammock Rd__ Carman Dr_________________ ____________________________ ____________________________ Exhibit IV.E Drainage Exhibit IV.E Solid Waste Exhibit IV.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 IV.E Provide a map showing the location of existing services and public facilities that will serve the subject property (i.e. water, sewer, fire protection, police protection, schools and emergency medical services. 3. ________ 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.2.c Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) 7 F. OTHER Identify the following areas relating to the subject property: _N/A_ 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 __X___ $16,700.00 non-refundable filing fee made payable to the Board of County Commissioners due at time of submittal. (Plus, proportionate share of advertising costs) _____ $9,000.00 non-refundable filing fee for a Small-Scale Amendment made payable to the Board of County Commissioners due at time of submittal. (Plus, proportionate share of advertising costs) __X__ Proof of ownership (copy of deed) __X__ Notarized Letter of Authorization if Agent is not the Owner (See attached form) * 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.2.c Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Affidavit of Authorization 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) & PL20210000623 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Exhibit I.D. Professional Consultants 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Carman Drive 15 Exhibit I.D. Professional Consultants Planning: Alexis Crespo, AICP Waldrop Engineering, P.A. 28100 Bonita Grande Drive #305 Bonita Springs, FL 34135 239.405.7777 239.405.7899 fax alexis.crespo@waldropengineering.com Land Use Attorney: Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester, P.A. 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 239.435.3535 239.435.1218 fax ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com Transportation: Ted Treesh Transportation Consultants, Inc 2726 Oak Ridge Court, Suite 503 Fort Myers, FL 33901 239.278.3090 tbt@trtrans.net Market Analysis: Russ Weyer Real Estate Econometrics, Inc. 239.269.1341 rweyer@ree-i.com Environmental: Bethany Brosious Senior Ecologist Passarella & Associates, Inc. 13620 Metropolis Avenue, #200 Fort Myers, FL 33912 239.274.0067 bethanyb@passarella.net 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Exhibit III.A. Legal Description 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Legal Description Parcel One: The East ½ of the North ½ of the Southeast ¼ of the Southwest ¼ of Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26, Collier County, Florida Parcel Two: The South ½ of the West ½ of the North ½ of the Southeast ¼ of the Southwest ¼ of Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida Parcel Identification Number: 00417000004 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Exhibit IV. B. Proposed Text Amendment 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) RVi Planning + Landscape Architecture • 28100 Bonita Grande Drive, Sutie 305 • Bonita Springs, FL 34135 • 239.405.7777 • www.rviplanning.com Carman Drive Subdistrict Proposed Text Amendment REVISED APRIL 2022 22. Carman Drive Subdistrict The intent of this Subdistrict, which comprises 15.41 acres, is to allow for a maximum of 212 dwelling units (limited to rental units), of which 42 units (20%) will be affordable housing units for persons earning between 81-120% of the Area Median Income (AMI). This Subdistrict is intended to promote affordable and workforce housing in proximity to transit, employment centers, and public infrastructure, which will serve to reduce existing trip lengths. The development of this Subdistrict will be governed by the following criteria: a. Rezoning is required to be in the form of a PUD. b. Residential uses are allowed at a density of 13.8 dwelling units per acre, calculated based upon the entire Subdistrict acreage, yielding a maximum of 212 dwelling units. The first 15 units above the base density of 23 units must be through the acquisition of TDR credits. c. Lands described as Carman Drive Subdistrict are subject to the following: Twenty Percent (20%) of the units will be affordable housing units and restricted to households earning 81-120% of the AMI. This restriction shall remain in place for no less than thirty (30) years from the date issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. As part of the annual PUD monitoring report the developer will include an annual report that provides the progress and monitoring of occupancy of income restricted units. d. All dwellings will be rental units. * * * * * * * * * * * * * 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Exhibit V.A. Aerial Map, Zoning Map & Existsing Land Use Map 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) C o l l i e r B l v dC o l l i e r B l v d R a t t l e s n a k e H a m m o c k R d R a t t l e s n a k e H a m m o c k R d Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Subject Parcel 0 0.2 0.4 0.60.1 Miles ¯Carman Drive Subdistrict Aerial Location Map 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) MPUD PUD A A PUD RPUD PUD MPUD PUD A A RPUD A CPUD MPUD C-4 C-4 A TTRVC PUD MPUD RPUD RSF-1 CFPUD C o l l i e r B l v dC o l l i e r B l v d R a t t l e s n a k e H a m m o c k R d R a t t l e s n a k e H a m m o c k R d Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community A Carman Drive Subdistrict Zoning Map Existing Subject Parcel 0 0.15 0.3 0.450.075 Miles ¯ 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CN ES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGR ID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Subject Parcel 0 0.1 0.2 0.30.05 Miles ¯ SINGLE-FAMILYRESIDENTIAL RECREATION(SWA MP BUGGY RACES) VAC ANT(FUTURE ALF) VAC ANT(FUTURE ALF)VAC ANT(FUTURE COMMERCIAL/MIXED-USE) VAC ANT(FUTURE MIXED -U SE) VAC ANT(FUTURE CO MMERC IAL) Rattles nak e H ammock Rd Carman Drive Subdistrict Existing La nd Use Ma pCollier Blvd9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Exhibit V.B. Existing and Proposed Future Land Use Maps 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) URF RFS UR UR UR MUA C URFC o l l i e r B l v dC o l l i e r B l v d R a t t l e s n a k e H a m m o c k R d R a t t l e s n a k e H a m m o c k R d Carman Drive Subdistrict Future Land Use Map Existing Subject Parcel Collier Blvd Community Facility Subdistrict Conservation Designation Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict RF-Sending Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict Urban Residential Subdistrict 0 0.3 0.6 0.90.15 Miles ¯ # 7 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) URF UR UR UR MUA C URF C o l l i e r B l v dC o l l i e r B l v d R a t t l e s n a k e H a m m o c k R d R a t t l e s n a k e H a m m o c k R d Carman Drive Subdistrict Future Land Use Map Proposed00.2 0.4 0.60.1 Miles ¯Subject Parcel Carman Drive Subdistrict Collier Blvd Community Facility Subdistrict Conservation Designation Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict Urban Residential Subdistrict # 7 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Exhibit V.C. Environmental Report 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Project No. 20CDL3377 CARMAN DRIVE SUBDISTRICT GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT April 2021 Prepared For: Carmen Drive 15, LLC 7742 Alico Road Fort Myers, Florida 33912 (239)208-4079 Prepared By: Passarella & Associates, Inc. 13620 Metropolis Avenue, Suite 200 Fort Myers, Florida 33912 (239) 274-0067 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction ....................................................................................................................................1 Vegetation Associations and Land Uses ........................................................................................1 Soils ...............................................................................................................................................2 Jurisdictional Wetlands ..................................................................................................................2 Listed Species ................................................................................................................................3 References ......................................................................................................................................4 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) ii LIST OF EXHIBITS Page Exhibit 1. Project Location Map ........................................................................................... E-1 Exhibit 2. Aerial with FLUCFCS and Wetlands Map .......................................................... E-1 Exhibit 3. Soils Map ............................................................................................................. E-1 Exhibit 4. Listed Species Survey .......................................................................................... E-1 Exhibit 5. Aerial with Boundary and Eagle Nest ................................................................. E-1 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) iii LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1. Existing Land Use and Cover Summary ................................................................ 1 Table 2. Soils Listed by the NRCS ...................................................................................... 2 Table 3. Wetland Acreages by FLUCFCS Code ................................................................. 2 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) 1 INTRODUCTION The following information regarding site conditions and environmental considerations has been prepared for the proposed growth management plan amendment for Local Greens (Project). The Project site is located in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County (Exhibit 1). More specifically, the Project site is located approximately 0.3 mile northeast of the intersection of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard (County Road (CR) 951). The Project site is bordered to the north by the Sapphire Cove residential community, to the south by the Watercrest Parcel, to the east by Florida Sports Park Road, and to the west by a Florida Power and Light easement. The Project site is comprised of undeveloped, forested and non-forested upland and wetland areas that contain high levels of cover by exotic vegeation including melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia), earleaf acacia (Acacia auriculiformis), and Peruvian primrose willow (Ludwigia peruviana). VEGETATION ASSOCATIONS AND LAND USES The vegetation mapping for the property was accomplished using December 2020 rectified color aerials (Scale: 1" = 100'), and groundtruthing was conducted on April 13, 2021. The vegetation associations and land uses were mapped utilizing the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) Levels III and IV (Florida Department of Transportation 1999). Level IV FLUCFCS was utilized to denote disturbance, and “E” codes were used to identify levels of exotic species invasion (i.e., melaleuca, spermacoce (Spermacoce verticillata), and earleaf acacia). AutoCAD Map 3D 2021 software was used to determine the acreage of each mapped polygon, produce summaries, and generate the final FLUCFCS map (Exhibit 2). A total of two vegetative associations and land uses (i.e., FLUCFCS codes) were identified on the property. The dominant habitat type on the property is Disturbed Land, Hydric (FLUCFCS Code 7401), accounting for 79.1 percent of the property (12.19± acres). Exotic vegetation documented on-site includes, but is not limited to, melaleuca, earleaf acacia, spermacoce, and torpedograss (Panicum repens). Table 1 summarizes the FLUCFCS acreages, and a brief description of each FLUCFCS classification follows. Table 1. Existing Land Use and Cover Summary FLUCFCS Code Description Acreage Percent of Total 740 Disturbed Land 3.22 20.9 7401 Disturbed Land, Hydric 12.19 79.1 Totals 15.4115.4 1 100.0 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) 2 Disturbed Land (FLUCFCS Code 740) The canopy of this upland habitat type is dominated by earleaf acacia. The sub-canopy is primarily melaleuca and includes earleaf acacia with scattered saltbush (Baccharis halimifolia) and climbing senna (Senna pendula). The ground cover includes broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), caesarweed (Urena lobata), spermacoce, and swamp flatsedge (Cyperus ligularis). Disturbed Land, Hydric (FLUCFCS Code 7401) The canopy of this wetland habitat type is open. The sub-canopy is dominated by melaleuca and includes earleaf acacia, slash pine (Pinus elliottii), and Peruvian primrose willow. The ground cover includes broomsedge, torpedograss, swamp flatsedge, yellow-eyed grass (Xyris sp.), spermacoce, rosy camphorweed (Pluchea baccharis), spreading beaksedge (Rhynchospora divergens), Southern beaksedge (Rhynchospora microcarpa), and big head rush (Juncus megacephalus). SOILS The soils for the property, per the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), are shown on Exhibit 3 and listed in Table 2. Table 2. Soils Listed by the NRCS Mapping Unit Description 21 Boca fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes 38 Urban land - Matlacha-Boca complex 121 Hallandale - Boca fine sand association, zero to two percent slopes JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS The subject property was reviewed for wetlands using the “Delineation of the Landward Extent of Wetlands and Surface Waters” (Chapter 62-340, Florida Administrative Code). The Project site contains 12.19± acres of wetlands (Exhibit 2). The wetlands are further identified as Disturbed Land, Hydric (FLUCFCS Code 7401). The wetlands for the property are shown in Exhibit 2. The wetlands by FLUCFCS code are summarized in Table 3. Table 3. Wetland Acreage by FLUCFCS Code FLUCFCS Code Description Acreage 7401 Disturbed Land, Hydric 12.19 Total 12.19 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) 3 LISTED SPECIES A listed plant and wildlife species survey was conducted by Passarella & Associates, Inc. on the Project site on April 13, 2021. No listed species were observed utilizing the Project site. The listed species survey methodology and results are provided as Exhibit 4. The western portion of the Project site is located within 660 feet of Bald Eagle Nest CO-060. An aerial depicting the location of the bald eagle nest and the 330- and 660-foot USFWS nest protection buffer zones is included as Exhibit 5. Prior to the initiation of construction activities, the developer will coordinate with Collier County and the USFWS regarding applicable guidelines and permitting requirements, as described in the USFWS National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (USFWS 2007). REFERENCES Florida Department of Transportation. 1999. Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System. Procedure No. 550-010-001-a. Third Edition. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) EXHIBIT 1 PROJECT LOCATION MAP 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) REVIEWED BY DRAWN BY REVISED DATE DATE DATECCHHAARRLLEEMMAAGGNNEEBBLLVVDD WHITAKER RDWHITAKER RD LLAAKKEE WW OOOODDBBLLVVDDAA LLBBIIRRDD VVEERROONNAAWWAALL KK CCII RRMANATEE RDMANATEE RDOOUUTTEERR DDRR ALLEYALLEYII VV YY DDRR TTRREEVV IISSOO BBAAYYBBLLVV DDBAYSHORE DRBAYSHORE DRGAIL BLVDGAIL BLVD COUNTY BARN RDCOUNTY BARN RDCOPE LNCOPE LN CREWS RDCREWS RD EVERLY AVEEVERLY AVE 31ST AVE SW31ST AVE SW 27TH AVE SW27TH AVE SW 66TH ST SW66TH ST SW29TH AVE SW29TH AVE SW 68TH ST SW68TH ST SW70TH ST SW70TH ST SW25TH AVE SW25TH AVE SW PALM DRPALM DRLE BUFFS RDLE BUFFS RD4444TTHHSSTTSSWWBENFIELD RDBENFIELD RDNN OORRTTHH RRDD GARLAND RDGARLAND RDINEZ RDINEZ RDMARKLEY AVEMARKLEY AVE FL O R I D A N A V E FL O R I D A N A V E GREENWAY RDGREENWAY RDKKIINNGGSSWWAAYYBECK BLVDBECK BLVD 32ND AVE SW32ND AVE SW NNAAPPLLEESSHH EERRIITTAA GGEEDDRR ESTEY AVEESTEY AVE COLLIER BLVD (SR 951)COLLIER BLVD (SR 951)CCEERRRROOMMAARR DDRRWWIILLDDFFLLOOWWEERR WW AA YY LLEELLYYRREESSOORRTTBBLLVVDDCCEELLEESSTTEEDDRRGGLLEENNEEAAGGLLEEBB LLVVDDAIRPORT PULLING RD SAIRPORT PULLING RD STTHHOOMMAASSSSOONN DDRRGGRREEYY OOAAKKSS DDRRSSBB AA RR EE FF OO OOTTWWIILLLLIIAAMMSSRRDDLLIIVVIINNGGSSTTOONNRRDDGGRRAANNDDLL EE LLYYDDRRAAIIRRPPOORRTTPPUULLLLIINNGGRRDDNN SMITH RDSMITH RDSSAAIINNTT AA NN DD RR EEWWSSBBLL VVDDWWHHIITTEELLAAKKEE BBLLVVDD KKIINNGGSS LLAAKKEEBBLLVVDDBLACKBURN RDBLACKBURN RD SANTA BARBARA BLVDSANTA BARBARA BLVDRRAATTTTLLEESSNNAAKKEE HHAAMMMMOOCCKK RRDD RRAADDIIOO RRDD GGOOLLDDEENN GGAATT EE PPKKWW YYDAVIS BLVDDAVIS BLVD COLLIER BLVD (CR 951)COLLIER BLVD (CR 951)SABAL PALM RDSABAL PALM RD (/41 ;3EXIT101 ;3EXIT105 §¨¦75 Gulf of Mexico SNAKERDALICO RD OIL WELL RD C O R K SCREW RD EVERGLADES BLVD¿À892 ¿À849 ¿À951 ¿À94 ¿À858 ¿À82 ¿À850 ¿À837 ¿À835 ¿À839 ¿À833 ¿À846 ¿À29 (/41 §¨¦75 C O L L I E RC O L L I E R H E N D R YH E N D R Y L E EL E E M O N R O EM O N R O E ^^^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^ ^ ^^ ^ ^ MIAMI TAMPA NAPLES ORLANDO KEY WEST SARASOTA PENSACOLA FORT MYERS VERO BEACH LAKE PLACID PANAMA CITY GAINESVILLE TALLAHASSEE JACKSONVILLE DAYTONA BEACH FORT LAUDERDALE¶ PROJECT LOCATIONSEC 14, TWP 50 S, RNG 26 E EXHIBIT 1. PROJECT LOCATION MAP P.F. B.B. 4/14/21 4/14/21LOCAL GREENS 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) EXHIBIT 2 AERIAL WITH FLUCFCS AND WETLANDS MAP 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) P/L~FLORIDA SPORTS PARK RD~7401(12.11 Ac.±)740(0.40 Ac.±)740(0.94 Ac.±)740(1.62 Ac.±)740(0.26 Ac.±)7401(0.08 Ac.±)J:\2020\20cdl3377\2021\GMP Amendment\Exhibit 2 Aerial with FLUCFCS and Wetlands Map 042721.dwg Tab: Exhibit 2 Apr 29, 2021 - 11:34am Plotted by: PaulF DRAWN BYREVIEWED BYREVISEDP.F., R.F.B.B.04/27/21DATEDATE04/27/21DATEEXHIBIT 2. AERIAL WITH FLUCFCS AND WETLANDS MAPLOCAL GREENSSCALE: 1" = 200'NOTES:AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED THROUGHTHE COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'SOFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE OF DECEMBER 2020.PROPERTY BOUNDARY ESTIMATED FROM THE COLLIERCOUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S GIS WEBSITE.FLUCFCS LINES ESTIMATED FROM 1"=200' AERIALPHOTOGRAPHS AND LOCATIONS APPROXIMATED.FLUCFCS PER FLORIDA LAND USE, COVER AND FORMSCLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (FLUCFCS) (FDOT 1999).WETLAND LINES HAVE NOT BEEN SURVEY LOCATEDAND HAVE NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY ANY AGENCY.LEGEND:SFWMD WETLANDS(12.19 Ac.±)9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 284Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 EXHIBIT 3 SOILS MAP 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) REVIEWED BY DRAWN BY REVISED DATE DATE DATE 2121 4949 4949 4949 3838 ¶¶ 0 100 200Feet LEGEND EXHIBIT 3. SOILS MAP P.F. B.B. 4/14/21 4/14/21LOCAL GREENS PROJECT LOCATION Soil Unit Description 21 Boca fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes 38 Urban land-Matlacha-Boca complex 49 Hallandale-Boca fine sands association, 0 to 2 percent slopes 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) EXHIBIT 4 LISTED SPECIES SURVEY 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) D-1 LOCAL GREENS LISTED SPECIES SURVEY April 2021 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report documents the results of the listed species survey conducted by Passarella & Associates, Inc. (PAI) on April 13, 2021 for the 15.41± acre Local Greens (Project). The Project site is located in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County (Appendix A). More specifically, the Project site is located approximately 0.3 mile northeast of the intersection of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard (County Road (CR) 951). The Project site is bordered to the north by the Sapphire Cove residential community, to the south by the Watercrest Parcel, to the east by Florida Sports Park Road, and to the west by a Florida Power and Light easement. The Project site is comprised of undeveloped, forested and non-forested upland and wetland areas. 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW AND FIELD SURVEY METHODOLOGY A literature review and field survey were conducted to determine whether the Project site was being utilized by state and/or federally listed species as identified by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). In addition, the property was surveyed for plant species listed by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and the USFWS as endangered, threatened, or commercially exploited or species included on the Collier County Rare and Less Rare plant lists (Land Development Code (LDC) Section 3.04.03). 2.1 Literature Review The literature review involved an examination of available information on listed species in the geographical region of the Project. The literature sources reviewed included the FWCC Florida’s Endangered and Threatened Species (2018); Florida Atlas of Breeding Sites for Herons and Their Allies (Runde et al. 1991); USFWS Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in the Southeast Region (1987); the Florida Panther Habitat Preservation Plan (Logan et al. 1993); the Landscape Conservation Strategy Map (Kautz et al. 2006); and USFWS and FWCC databases for telemetry locations of the Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) (RCW), Florida scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens), and wading bird rookeries (such as wood stork (Mycteria americana)) in Collier County. FWCC and USFWS database information is updated on a periodic basis and is current through different dates, depending on the species. The data is current through the noted dates: bald eagle nest locations – 2020; panther telemetry – June 2020; and RCW locations – December 2020. 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) D-2 2.2 Field Survey The field survey was conducted during daylight hours by qualified ecologists walking parallel belt transects across the Project site. Transects were spaced to ensure that sufficient visual coverage of ground and flora was obtained. Approximate transect locations and spacing are shown on Appendix B. At regular intervals the ecologists stopped, remained quiet, and listened for wildlife vocalizations. The survey was conducted with the aid of 8x or 10x power binoculars. The listed wildlife species surveyed for included, but were not limited to, the gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus), Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi), RCW, wood stork, Big Cypress fox squirrel (Sciurus niger avicennia), and Florida panther. The listed plant species surveyed for included species typical to forested upland and wetland habitats in this geographical region, as well as listed epiphytes and terrestrial orchids common in Southwest Florida. 3.0 RESULTS 3.1 Literature Review According to FWCC and Audubon Eaglewatch databases, the closest documented bald eagle nest is CO-060 located approximately 620 feet west of the western Project limits (Appendixs C and D). The nest distance is within the the USFWS and the FWCC recommended 660-foot buffer zone for active and alternate bald eagle nests. Bald eagles are not a state or federally listed species; however, they are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The Project site is located within the USFWS consultation for RCWs (Appendix E); however, no RCW locations are documented on the Project site (Appendix C), and the Project site does not contain suitable habitat for the RCW. The closest documented RCW location is located approximately 0.5 mile west of the Project site. This location, along with the others documented west of Collier Boulevard (CR 951), is considered a relic or historic location. The RCW is a state and federally listed endangered species. The Project site is located within the 30± kilometer (18.6± miles) Core Foraging Area (CFA) of one documented wood stork rookery (No. 619018) (Appendix F). The wetlands within the proposed development limits are infested with exotic vegetation including torpedograss (Panicum repens), spermacoce (Spermacoce sp.), melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia), and earleaf acacia (Acacia auriculiformis); and they offer poor quality foraging habitat for wood storks. The wood stork is a state and federally listed threatened species. Two Florida panther telemetry points are located on the Project site, with additional telemetry points located in the vicinity (Appendix C). The on-site telemetry points were from Florida Panther No. 219 (FP 219) and were recorded in November and December 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) D-3 2013. FP 219 died in September 2015, and no additional telemetry has been recorded on- site. The property is within the Florida Panther Primary Zone (Kautz et al. 2006) (Appendix G). The Florida panther is a state and federally listed endangered species. The Project site is located within the USFWS Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus) (FBB) consultation area and proposed critical habitat area (Appendix H). The Project site contains potential FBB roosting and foraging habitat. The Florida bonneted bat is a state and federally listed endangered species. 3.2 Field Survey The field survey was conducted on April 13, 2021. Weather conditions during the survey were partly cloudy skies, five to ten miles per hour easterly winds, and temperatures in the upper 70s. The field survey documented no listed wildlife or plant species on the Project site. Appendix B shows the location of the transects traversed during the survey. 4.0 SUMMARY The literature search and review of agency databases found two Florida panther telemetry points within the Project limits. The telemetry points are from FP 219 and were recorded in November and December 2013. FP 219 died in September 2015, and no additional telemetry has been documented on-site. No other documented occurrences for listed species were found on the Project site during the literature review. The Project site is located within the USFWS and the FWCC recommended 660-foot buffer zone for Bald Eagle Nest CO-060. The Project site is located within the CFA for one documented wood stork colony and within the RCW consultation area. In addition, the Project site is located within the Primary Zone for Florida panthers and within the consultation area and proposed critical habitat area for Florida bonneted bats. The field survey conducted on the property, documented no listed species within the Project limits. 5.0 REFERENCES Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2018. Florida’s Endangered and Threatened Species. Official Lists, Bureau of Non-Game Wildlife, Division of Wildlife. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Tallahassee, Florida. Kautz, R., R. Kawula, T. Hoctor, J. Comiskey, D. Jansen, D. Jennings, J. Kasbohm, F. Mazzotti, R. McBride, L. Richardson, K. Root. 2006. How much is enough? Landscape-scale conservation for the Florida panther. Biological Conservation, Volume 130, Issue 1, Pages 118-133 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) D-4 Logan, Todd, Andrew C. Eller, Jr., Ross Morrell, Donna Ruffner, and Jim Sewell. 1993. Florida Panther Habitat Preservation Plan South Florida Population. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Gainesville, Florida. Runde, D.E., J.A. Gore, J.A. Hovis, M.S. Robson, and P.D. Southall. 1991. Florida Atlas of Breeding Sites for Herons and Their Allies, Update 1986 - 1989. Nongame Wildlife Program Technical Report No. 10. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, Florida. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in the Southeast Region. 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) APPENDIX A PROJECT LOCATION MAP 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) REVIEWED BY DRAWN BY REVISED DATE DATE DATECCHHAARRLLEEMMAAGGNNEEBBLLVVDD WHITAKER RDWHITAKER RD LLAAKKEE WW OOOODDBBLLVVDDAA LLBBIIRRDD VVEERROONNAAWWAALL KK CCII RRMANATEE RDMANATEE RDOOUUTTEERR DDRR ALLEYALLEYII VV YY DDRR TTRREEVV IISSOO BBAAYYBBLLVV DDBAYSHORE DRBAYSHORE DRGAIL BLVDGAIL BLVD COUNTY BARN RDCOUNTY BARN RDCOPE LNCOPE LN CREWS RDCREWS RD EVERLY AVEEVERLY AVE 31ST AVE SW31ST AVE SW 27TH AVE SW27TH AVE SW 66TH ST SW66TH ST SW29TH AVE SW29TH AVE SW 68TH ST SW68TH ST SW70TH ST SW70TH ST SW25TH AVE SW25TH AVE SW PALM DRPALM DRLE BUFFS RDLE BUFFS RD4444TTHHSSTTSSWWBENFIELD RDBENFIELD RDNN OORRTTHH RRDD GARLAND RDGARLAND RDINEZ RDINEZ RDMARKLEY AVEMARKLEY AVE FL O R I D A N A V E FL O R I D A N A V E GREENWAY RDGREENWAY RDKKIINNGGSSWWAAYYBECK BLVDBECK BLVD 32ND AVE SW32ND AVE SW NNAAPPLLEESSHH EERRIITTAA GGEEDDRR ESTEY AVEESTEY AVE COLLIER BLVD (SR 951)COLLIER BLVD (SR 951)CCEERRRROOMMAARR DDRRWWIILLDDFFLLOOWWEERR WW AA YY LLEELLYYRREESSOORRTTBBLLVVDDCCEELLEESSTTEEDDRRGGLLEENNEEAAGGLLEEBB LLVVDDAIRPORT PULLING RD SAIRPORT PULLING RD STTHHOOMMAASSSSOONN DDRRGGRREEYY OOAAKKSS DDRRSSBB AA RR EE FF OO OOTTWWIILLLLIIAAMMSSRRDDLLIIVVIINNGGSSTTOONNRRDDGGRRAANNDDLL EE LLYYDDRRAAIIRRPPOORRTTPPUULLLLIINNGGRRDDNN SMITH RDSMITH RDSSAAIINNTT AA NN DD RR EEWWSSBBLL VVDDWWHHIITTEELLAAKKEE BBLLVVDD KKIINNGGSS LLAAKKEEBBLLVVDDBLACKBURN RDBLACKBURN RD SANTA BARBARA BLVDSANTA BARBARA BLVDRRAATTTTLLEESSNNAAKKEE HHAAMMMMOOCCKK RRDD RRAADDIIOO RRDD GGOOLLDDEENN GGAATT EE PPKKWW YYDAVIS BLVDDAVIS BLVD COLLIER BLVD (CR 951)COLLIER BLVD (CR 951)SABAL PALM RDSABAL PALM RD (/41 ;3EXIT101 ;3EXIT105 §¨¦75 Gulf of Mexico SNAKERDALICO RD OIL WELL RD C O R K SCREW RD EVERGLADES BLVD¿À892 ¿À849 ¿À951 ¿À94 ¿À858 ¿À82 ¿À850 ¿À837 ¿À835 ¿À839 ¿À833 ¿À846 ¿À29 (/41 §¨¦75 C O L L I E RC O L L I E R H E N D R YH E N D R Y L E EL E E M O N R O EM O N R O E ^^^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^ ^ ^^ ^ ^ MIAMI TAMPA NAPLES ORLANDO KEY WEST SARASOTA PENSACOLA FORT MYERS VERO BEACH LAKE PLACID PANAMA CITY GAINESVILLE TALLAHASSEE JACKSONVILLE DAYTONA BEACH FORT LAUDERDALE¶ PROJECT LOCATIONSEC 14, TWP 50 S, RNG 26 E APPENDIX A. PROJECT LOCATION MAP P.F. R.F. 4/12/21 4/12/21LOCAL GREENS 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) APPENDIX B AERIAL WITH SURVEY TRANSECTS 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) P/L~FLORIDA SPORTS PARK RD~ J:\2020\20cdl3377\2021\On-Site LSS\Appendix B Aerial with Survey Transects.dwg Tab: 17X11-C Apr 29, 2021 - 11:25am Plotted by: PaulFP.F.R.F.B.B.REVISIONS4/13/214/13/21DATEDATE4/13/21DATEDRAWING No.SHEET No.20CDL3377DATE13620 Metropolis AvenueSuite 200Ft. Myers, FL 33912Phone (239) 274-0067Fax (239) 274-0069DRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVIEWED BYLOCAL GREENSAERIAL WITH SURVEY TRANSECTSSCALE: 1" = 100'APPENDIX BNOTES:AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED THROUGHTHE COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'SOFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE OF DECEMBER 2020.PROPERTY BOUNDARY ESTIMATED FROM THE COLLIERCOUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S GIS WEBSITE.LEGEND:APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF WALKEDTRANSECTS9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 295Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) APPENDIX C DOCUMENTED OCCURRENCES OF LISTED SPECIES 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) DRAWN BY REVIEWED BY REVISED DATE DATE DATE LEGEND A !( !H 0 1 2Miles ¶ APPENDIX C. DOCUMENTED OCCURRENCES OF LISTED SPECIES P.F. R.F. 4/12/21 4/12/21LOCAL GREENS !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !F !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H!H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H l l A A A A A A A A A AA A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A BECK BLVDLIVINGSTON RDCOUNTY BARN RDLA K E W O O D BLVDSANTA BARBARA BLVDGOLDEN GATE PKWY RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK RADIO RD DAVIS BLVD ¿À951 (/41 §¨¦75 C O L L I E RC O L L I E R PROJECT LOCATION 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 APPENDIX D AERIAL WITH BOUNDARY AND EAGLE NEST 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) P/L~FLORIDA SPORTS PARK RD~~RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK RD~~COLLIER BLVD~J:\2020\20cdl3377\2021\On-Site LSS\Appendix D Aerial with Boundary and Eagle Nest.dwg Tab: 17X11-C Apr 29, 2021 - 11:26am Plotted by: PaulFP.F.R.F.B.B.REVISIONS4/13/214/13/21DATEDATE4/13/21DATEDRAWING No.SHEET No.20CDL3377DATE13620 Metropolis AvenueSuite 200Ft. Myers, FL 33912Phone (239) 274-0067Fax (239) 274-0069DRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVIEWED BYLOCAL GREENSAERIAL WITH BOUNDARY AND EAGLE NESTSCALE: 1" = 300'APPENDIX DNOTES:AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED THROUGHTHE COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'SOFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE OF DECEMBER 2020.PROPERTY BOUNDARY ESTIMATED FROM THE COLLIERCOUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S GIS WEBSITE.LEGEND:330' RADIUS660' RADIUSEAGLE NEST CO-0609.A.2.cPacket Pg. 299Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) APPENDIX E RCW CONSULTATION AREA WITH LOCATIONS 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H!H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H!H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H GulfofMexico (/41 C O L L I E R C O L L I E R L E EL E E §¨¦75 REVISED DATE REVIEWED BY DRAWN BY DATE DATEAPPENDIX E. RCW CONSULTATION AREA WITH LOCATIONS R.F. B.B. 04/27/21 04/27/21LOCAL GREENS PROJECT LOCATION 0 1 2 3Miles ¶ LEGEND !H 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) APPENDIX F FLORIDA WOOD STORK NESTING COLONIES AND 18.6 MILE CORE FORAGING AREAS 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) DRAWN BY REVIEWED BY REVISED DATE DATE DATE kj kj Gulf of Mexico RIDGEDRLI VI NGSTONRDLOGAN BLVDTERRY ST CRAYTONRDRADIO RDVANDERBILT DROIL WELL GRADE RDCAMP KEAIS RDTHREEOAKSPKWYD A V IS BLVDPINE RIDGE RDOLD US 41EST EROBLVD GOLDE N GA TE P K W YGOODLETTE FRANK RDBONITA BEACH RD VANDERBILT BEACH RD AIRPORT-PULLING RDGOLDEN GATE BLVD OIL WELL RD CORKSCREW RD EVERGLADES BLVD¿À849 ¿À850 ¿À29 ¿À951 ¿À846 (/41 §¨¦75 C O L L I E RC O L L I E R L E E L E E 0 2 4 6Miles ¶ LEGEND kj APPENDIX F. FLORIDA WOOD STORK NESTING COLONIES P.F. R.F. 4/12/21 4/12/21LOCAL GREENS PROJECT LOCATION AND 18.6 MILE CORE FORAGING AREAS 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 APPENDIX G PANTHER ZONES WITH PANTHER FOCUS AREA 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Gulf of MexicoOAKS BLVDRIDGEDRLI VI NGSTONRDB A R FIE L D DRLOGAN BLVDTERRY ST CRAYTONRDSANTA BARBARA BLVDRADIO RD CAMP KEAIS RDVANDERBILT DROIL WELL GRADE RD BONITA BEACH RD OLD US 41DAVIS BLVD PINE RIDGE RD GOODLETTE FRANK RDVANDERBILT BEACH RD AIRPORT-PULLING RDGOLDEN GATE BLVD SAN MARCO DROIL WELL RD EVERGLADES BLVD¿À858 ¿À892 ¿À837 ¿À951 ¿À29 ¿À846 (/41 §¨¦75 C O L L I E RC O L L I E R L E EL E E REVIEWED BY DRAWN BY REVISED DATE DATE DATE APPENDIX G. PANTHER ZONES WITH PANTHER FOCUS AREA P.F. R.F. 4/12/21 4/12/21LOCAL GREENS 0 1 2 3Miles ¶ LEGEND PROJECT LOCATION 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) APPENDIX H FLORIDA BONNETED BAT CONSULTATION AREA AND PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT MAP 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Gulf of MexicoRIDGEDRLIVINGSTONRDB A R FIE L D DRLOGAN BLVDTERRY ST CRAYTONRDSANTA BARBARA BLVDRADIO RD CAMP KEAIS RDVANDERBILT DROIL WELL GRADE RD BONITA BEACH RD OLD US 41DAVIS BLVD PINE RIDGE RD G OLDEN GATE P KW Y GOODLETTE FRANK RDVANDERBILT BEACH RD AIRPORT-PULLING RDGOLDEN GATE BLVD SAN MARCO DROIL WELL RD EVERGLADES BLVD¿À858 ¿À892 ¿À837 ¿À951 ¿À29 ¿À846 (/41 §¨¦75 C O L L I E R C O L L I E R L E E L E E REVISED DATE REVIEWED BY DRAWN BY DATE DATEAPPENDIX H. FLORIDA BONNETED BAT CONSULTATION AREA AND PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT MAP P.F. R.F. 4/12/21 4/12/21LOCAL GREENS PROJECT LOCATION 0 1 2 3Miles ¶ LEGEND 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) EXHIBIT 5 AERIAL WITH BOUNDARY AND EAGLE NEST 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) P/L~FLORIDA SPORTS PARK RD~~RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK RD~~COLLIER BLVD~J:\2020\20cdl3377\2021\GMP Amendment\Exhibit 5 Aerial with Boundary and Eagle Nest.dwg Tab: 17X11-C Apr 29, 2021 - 11:34am Plotted by: PaulFP.F.R.F.B.B.REVISIONS4/13/214/13/21DATEDATE4/13/21DATEDRAWING No.SHEET No.20CDL3377DATE13620 Metropolis AvenueSuite 200Ft. Myers, FL 33912Phone (239) 274-0067Fax (239) 274-0069DRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVIEWED BYLOCAL GREENSAERIAL WITH BOUNDARY AND EAGLE NESTSCALE: 1" = 300'EXHIBIT 5NOTES:AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED THROUGHTHE COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'SOFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE OF DECEMBER 2020.PROPERTY BOUNDARY ESTIMATED FROM THE COLLIERCOUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S GIS WEBSITE.LEGEND:330' RADIUS660' RADIUSEAGLE NEST CO-0609.A.2.cPacket Pg. 309Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Master Site File Letter 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) 500 South Bronough Street • Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 • www.flheritage.com/preservation/sitefile 850.245.6440 ph | 850.245.6439 fax | SiteFile@dos.state.fl.us This record search is for informational purposes only and does NOT constitute a project review. This search only identifies resources recorded at the Florida Master Site File and does NOT provide project approval from the Division of Historical Resources. Contact the Compliance and Review Section of the Division of Historical Resources at CompliancePermits@dos.MyFlorida.com for project review information. April 29, 2021 Patrick Murray Project Planner / GIS Analyst In response to your request on April 29, 2021, the Florida Master Site File lists no cultural resources recorded in the designated area located at 8496 Rattlesnake Hammock Rd. East of Collier Blvd and North of Rattlesnake Hammock Rd and sits within Section 14 / Township 50 / Range 26, Collier County, Florida. When interpreting the results of our search, please consider the following information: x This search area may contain unrecorded archaeological sites, historical structures or other resources even if previously surveyed for cultural resources. x Because vandalism and looting are common at Florida sites, we ask that you limit the distribution of location information on archaeological sites. x While many of our records document historically significant resources, the documentation of a resource at the Florida Master Site File does not necessarily mean the resource is historically significant. x Federal, state and local laws require formal environmental review for most projects. This search DOES NOT constitute such a review. If your project falls under these laws, you should contact the Compliance and Review Section of the Division of Historical Resources at CompliancePermits@dos.MyFlorida.com Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions regarding the results of this search. Sincerely, Eman M. Vovsi, Ph.D. Florida Master Site File Eman.Vovsi@DOS.MyFlorida.com 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) 8496 Rattlesnake Hammock Rd Poison Ivy Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 April 27, 2021 VIA: E-MAIL Luke Schultheis P.E. Luke.Schultheis@waldropengineering.com Project Manager Waldrop Engineering 28100 Bonita Grande Drive, Suite 305 Bonita Springs, FL 34135 Subject: Water and Wastewater Service Availability Project: Carman Drive 15 (8496 Rattlesnake Hammock RD) Parcel #: 00417000004 Dear Luke: The subject project is in the service areas of the Collier County Water-Sewer District’s (CCWSD) regional WTP and South County Water Reclamation Facility. 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. Water service is readily available to the project via an existing 8” water main at the northeast corner of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Carman Drive. The water main is more than 200 feet from the property line. As such, connection is encouraged but not required. 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. Unless served by a master meter, the project shall include a stub- out for future development at the northeast corner of the project, as required per subsection 2.2.2 of the Design Criteria. 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 at the northwest corner of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Carman Drive. The force main is more than 200 feet from the property line. As such, connection is encouraged but not required. Please contact the Wastewater Engineering Section (WasteWaterEngineering@colliercountyfl.gov) to confirm downstream wastewater collection/transmission system capacity. See the attached GIS screen shot for approximate existing utility locations. 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) 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 Brett Rosenblum (Brett.Rosenblum@colliercountyfl.gov) for assistance with this requirement. If you have any questions, you may contact me at (239) 252-1037 or Eric.Fey@colliercountyfl.gov. Respectfully, Eric Fey, P.E., Principal Project Manager CC: Steve Messner, Division Director – Water, PUD/WD; Beth Johnssen, Division Director – Wastewater, PUD/WWD; Brett Rosenblum, Principal Project Manager, GMD/DRD; Dan Roman, Principal Project Manager – Wastewater, PUD/EPMD; Brett Rosenblum, Principal Project Manager, GMD/DRD; Joanna Nicholson, Site Plans Reviewer, GMD/DRD; Utility Planning Section 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) GIS Screen Shot 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Exhibit IV.E. Public Facilities Level of Service Analysis 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA Public Facilities Analysis Page 1 of 3 Carman Drive Subdistrict Exhibit IV.E Public Facilities Level of Service Analysis REVISED JANUARY 2022 The proposed text amendment is site-specific and only applies to the subject property known as Carman Drive, located northeast of Mixed Use Activity Center #7. The subject property is in the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, which permits up to 1.5 dwelling unit per acre, or a maximum of 23 dwelling units (DUs) on the 15.4+/-acre parcel. The following public facilities analysis evaluates the project impacts on potable water, wastewater, drainage, parks, schools, roadways, fire/EMS, and solid waste. The source for the LOS information is the 2020 AUIR. 1. POTABLE WATER Adopted Level of Service Standard = 150 GPD/person/day for Collier County Utilities Existing Demand: 23 DU x 150 GPD x 2.5 = 8,625 GPD Proposed Increase in Demand: 189 DU x 150 GPD x 2.5 = 70,875 GPD Permitted Capacity: Required Plant Capacity FY28: 53.88 MGD 40.8 MGD The proposed GMP amendment results in total potable water demand of 79,500 GPD. The property is located within the Collier County potable water service area. The County has existing plant capacity of approximately 52 MGD. The proposed additional 189 multi-family dwelling units will not create any LOS issues in the 5-year planning horizon. This Project will have no significant impact on the potable water system and capacity is available in Collier County. 2. SANITARY SEWER Adopted Level of Service Standard = 100 GPD/person/day Existing Demand: 23 DU x 100 GPD x 2.5 = 5,750 GPD 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA Public Facilities Analysis Page 2 of 3 Proposed Increase in Demand: 189 DU x 100 GPD x 2.5 = 47,250 GPD Permitted Capacity: 16.0 MGD Required Plant Capacity FY28: 14.5 MGD The proposed GMP amendment results in a total sanitary sewer demand of 53,000 GPD. The subdistrict is located in the South Sewer Service Area of the Collier County Water/Sewer District. 3. ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR ROADS Please refer to the Traffic Impact Statement for discussions of the project’s impact on level of service for arterial and collector roadways within the project’s radius of development influence. 4. DRAINAGE The County has adopted a LOS standard for private developments which requires development to occur consistent with water quantity and quality standards established in Ordinances 74-50, 90- 10, 2001-27, and LDC Ordinance 2004-41, as may be amended. The single project within the proposed subdistrict has been issued a surface water management permit by the South Florida Water Management District which has established criteria for the volume of water stored on site as well as the quality of the water which may be discharged from the site. The development within the subdistrict is consistent with the County LOS standards. 5. SOLID WASTE The adopted LOS for solid waste is two years of lined cell capacity at the previous 3-year average tons per year disposal rate and 10 years of permittable landfill capacity of the disposal rate. Existing Demand: 23 DU x 0.54 tons per person x 2.5 = 31.05 tons Proposed Increase in Demand: 189 DU x 0.54 tons per person x 2.5 = 255.15 tons The proposed GMP amendment results in an increased solid waste demand of 255.15 tons a year. Current landfill capacity is anticipated to be 18,710,256 tons. There are no current capacity issues, and none are anticipated through the year 2069. 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA Public Facilities Analysis Page 3 of 3 6. COMMUNITY & REGIONAL PARKS The proposed 212 dwelling units will pay park impact fees to mitigate for their impacts on this public facility. No adverse impacts to Community or Regional Parks result from the amendment of the subdistrict. 7. SCHOOLS The proposed 212 dwelling units will pay school impact fees to mitigate for their impacts. No adverse impacts to schools result from the creation of the subdistrict. 8. FIRE CONTROL AND EMS The proposed project lies within the Greater Naples Fire and Rescue District. The Greater Naples Fire and Rescue District - Station #23 is located at 6055 Collier Blvd., which is approximately 4.5 miles from the property boundary. No significant impacts to Fire Control level of service are anticipated due to the proposed project. Estimated impact fees for EMS and fire would be determined at time of SDP based on each unit. Sheriff, Fire Protection and EMS Services location/address of facilities intended to serve the project are: • North Collier Fire and Rescue District - Station #23 6055 Collier Blvd. • Collier County Sheriff North Naples Substation 8075 Lely Cultural Pkwy. 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) #1 #1 #2 #1#1 #1 #2 #1 #2 #3 #4 #1 !H !H !H !H!HU S 4 1 U S 4 1 D a v i s B l v dDavis B l v d Collier BlvdCollier BlvdR a d i o R dRadio R d R a t t l e s n a k e H a m m o c k R dRattlesnake H a m m o c k R dAirport Pulling RdAirport Pulling RdB e c k B l v dBeck B l v d County Barn RdCounty Barn RdSanta Barbara BlvdSanta Barbara BlvdBayshore DrBayshore DrSource: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Carman Drive Subdistrict Subject Parcel Ride Cat Silver Route Ride Cat Green Route !H Commercial Plaza by Davis Blvd !H Hacienda Lakes Bussiness Park !H Florida SouthWestern College Center !H Physicians Regional Hospital !H Walmart Supercenter Plaza #1 South Regional Library #1 Calusa Park Elementary School #2 Lely Elementary School #3 Lely High School #4 Parkside Elementary School #1 Station 72 #2 Station 75 #1 East Naples Substation Dist 3 #1 Medic 25 #2 Medic 75 (Housed at FD Station 75) #1 Physicians Regional - Collier Blvd #1 BusStop Three Mile Buffer Two Mile Buffer One Mile Buffer 0 0.7 1.4 2.10.35 Miles ¯ 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Amendment Justification Narrative & Sprawl Analysis 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) RVi Planning + Landscape Architecture • 28100 Bonita Grande Drive, Sutie 305 • Bonita Springs, FL 34135 • 239.405.7777 • www.rviplanning.com Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA AMENDMENT JUSTIFICATION NARRATIVE REVISED JANUARY 2022 The Carman Drive Subdistrict subject property (“Property”) comprises 15.4+/- acres and is generally located to the northeast of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) and Rattlesnake Hammock Road. The Property has access from Carman Drive and located in unincorporated Collier County, Florida. The Property is designated Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict (URF) on the Future Land Use Map and is zoned Agricultural. The Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict allows for 1.5 units per gross acre. The Property is currently undeveloped and partially vegetated. The Applicant is requesting a site-specific map and text amendment to the Future Land Use Element to create the Carman Drive Subdistrict to allow up to 212 dwelling units (limited to rental units). The amendment will allow for build-out of this quadrant at an arterial intersection and activity center node with a compact, residential project that provides for market-rate and affordable workforce housing in close proximity to available public infrastructure, goods, services and employment. Similar to other developments in the Urban Residential Fringe that have utilized TDR credits to increase density, the Applicant proposes the utilization The first 15 units above the base density of 23 units must be through the acquisition of TDR credits. An affordable housing component is proposed consisting of a minimum of 42 units (20%) at the moderate-income level, or 81-120% of Area Median Income (AMI). This project does not cater to the higher end of the affordable AMI range, known as “GAP” households earning up to 140% of the AMI, but rather those earning between 81-120% of the AMI, which is particularly high demand in Collier County. As outlined in detail below, the proposed text amendment will further the County’s stated goals to: • Provide affordable workforce housing at the “Moderate” income level, to address gaps in the existing local affordable housing supply; • Efficiently use the County’s investment in public infrastructure by locating intensive land uses in urban-designated areas of the County where adequate and available public facilities and infrastructure exist; • Uphold the intent of the Urban Residential Fringe (URF) future land use category by providing the necessary transition between the urban and rural designated areas of the County. The following is data and analysis that supports approval of the proposed GMP Amendment and 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) RVi Planning + Landscape Architecture | 2 of 7 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA PL2021000620 identifies the request’s appropriateness in relation to the adopted Goals, Objectives and Policies in the GMP and the requirements set forth in Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. PROJECT HISTORY/BACKGROUND The Property is currently in the Rural Agricultural (A) Zoning District and abutting Activity Center #7. Surrounding parcels have secured zoning entitlements to allow for intensive commercial retail and office development, as well as Assisted Living Facilities (ALF). Additionally, the Hacienda Lakes MPUD/DRI has been approved, allowing for a master-planned community consisting of 1,760 dwellings units, 327,500 square feet of retail, 70,000 square feet of office, 135 hotel rooms, and 140,000 square feet of business park uses. These approvals and the resulting development pattern along the Collier Blvd. corridor have significantly urbanized this portion of the County and resulted in continued investment in public infrastructure to serve the growth of the corridor. These investments include, but are not limited to: utilities, roadways, transit, schools, Fire/EMS, library and other facilities outlined in Exhibit IV.E., which includes the Urban Facilities Map. SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN The Property is located in a rapidly developing urbanized portion of the County as evidenced by the property’s proximity to Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake Hammock Road. The property is also proximate to existing and approved urban levels of development, as well as major public facilities including schools, hospitals, and libraries. The location of this property is adjacent to similar projects and compliments approved developments such as: The Hacienda Lakes MPUD/DRI, The Sierra Meadows PUD, Good Turn Center MPUD, and McMullen MPUD, contributing to the compatibility and similarity of the surrounding area. The Property is located northeast of Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake Hammock Road, both county-maintained arterial roadways. The site represents infill development based upon the existing and approved/planned developments surrounding the project. Please refer to Table 1 below, which provides an inventory of the immediately adjacent Future Land Use Categories, zoning districts, and existing land uses. TABLE 1: INVENTORY OF SURROUNDING LANDS DIRECTION FUTURE LAND USE ZONING DISTRICT EXISTING LAND USE North Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict RPUD Single Family Residential (The Lord’s way 30 Acre RPUD); FPL Utility Site South Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict MPUD Vacant Mixed Use (McMullen MPUD) East Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict MPUD Florida Sports Park (Swamp Buggy) (Hacienda Lakes) West Mixed Use Activity Center; Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict MPUD, Commercial; Agriculture Vacant Mixed Use (Good Turn Center) Vacant Commercial; FPL Utility Site 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) RVi Planning + Landscape Architecture | 3 of 7 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA PL2021000620 The Property is northeast of a designated Mixed-Use Activity Center, which is specifically intended to provide for concentrated commercial and mixed-use development with “carefully configured access to the road network”. Activity Center #7 in general encompasses 209+/- acres and includes a diverse mix of approved Mixed Use Planned Unit Developments (MPUDs). The Lord’s Way 30 Acre RPUD to the north of the Property is approved for residential dwelling units of single-family, two-family, townhomes, and multi-family types with a maximum of 75 units (2.5 du/acre) per Ordinance 14-11. The Good Turn Center MPUD immediately to the west of the Property is approved for a maximum of 100,000 square feet of commercial land uses and/or a variety of skilled nursing care facility uses with a maximum of 200 units (21 du/acre) per Ordinance 09-53. The Hacienda Lakes MPUD to the east of the Property allows for a maximum of 1,760 residential dwelling units and a variety of commercial, professional, business park, medical office, and hotel uses throughout the MPUD per Ordinance 11-41. The Property is immediately adjacent to the Attraction Tract within the Hacienda Lakes MPUD which allows for a variety of amusement and recreational uses and is the location of the Swamp Buggy Race at the Florida Sports Park. The McMullen MPUD to the south of the Property is approved for a maximum of 185,000 square feet of commercial uses pursuant to Ordinance 10-18. Care units are also permitted in this project utilizing a commercial intensity conversion. The commercial tract of the Hacienda Lakes MPUD to the south of Rattlesnake Hammock Road is approved for up to 327,500 square feet of retail land uses and 70,000 square feet of professional and medical office uses. 135 hotel rooms are also allowed on this tract. The surrounding development pattern is indicative of the intent for compact, urban levels of development at the Collier Blvd./Rattlesnake Hammock intersection to accommodate the need for goods and services in southern Collier County. This area is lacking in housing types that are closely integrated with these existing and planned commercial uses. GMP ANALYSIS & CONSISTENCY • TRANSITION OF DENSITY The Property is within the Urban Residential Fringe (URF) Subdistrict of the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP). This subdistrict is specifically sited on the Future Land Use Map to provide transitional densities between the Urban-designated area along the coast, and the Agricultural/Rural area generally located 1 mile east of Collier Blvd. The URF was established in 1989 to provide a transition from the urban area which allowed a density of 4 units per acre, to the rural area that allowed a density of 1 unit per 5 acres. Since 1989, the Hacienda Lakes MPUD/DRI has been approved, which fully satisfies the intended transition of land uses and densities from the arterial frontage to the Urban/Rural interface one mile east of the Property. Specifically, Hacienda Lakes’ master plan provides for commercial uses at the arterial intersection, which transitions to residential uses straddling the future Benfield Parkway, and finally designated preserve tracts along the project’s eastern edge. 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) RVi Planning + Landscape Architecture | 4 of 7 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA PL2021000620 Due to this confirmed development pattern, along with other intervening MPUDs, namely Hacienda Lakes to the east, the GMP’s intent to provide for a logical transition from Urban to Rural in this area of the County is not impacted by this amendment. • WORKFORCE & AFFORDABLE HOUSING The Property’s location on a key growth corridor in the County makes it an ideal area to accommodate higher density residential uses. The site is not located adjacent to established low- density areas that would result in compatibility concerns with neighboring developments. The amendment will allow for the development of a combination of up to 212 market rate and affordable workforce housing units, which directly addresses the identified demand for diversified housing to accommodate the County’s existing residents and projected population growth. The enclosed Market Study further substantiates the need for this amendment to meet housing needs in the County. Higher densities are necessary to support commercial uses, multi-modal development patterns, and transit usage, all of which result in reduced vehicle miles traveled. The Property is ideally located adjacent to a mixed-use activity center that currently permits higher densities and intensities within other approved mixed-use developments surrounding the property. As detailed in the enclosed Ch. 163 Sprawl Analysis, the amendment directly supports sound planning principles, including the integration of residential uses. The requested amendment directly facilitates live-work opportunities in the Urban- designated area, and locates residents in close proximity to goods, and services and employment. • GMP POLICY ANALYSIS FLUE Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. The project will be accessed via Carman Drive, a two-lane local road connecting to Rattlesnake Hammock Road and The Lord’s Way. Carman Drive is a private road owned by Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC and will be constructed to county standards. Carman Drive improvements have been approved and reviewed by Collier County under PL2018000046. FLUE Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. The proposed development pattern as evidenced in the companion RPUD will have an insignificant impact on nearby collector and arterial roads. Due to the size of the site and the proposed layout of the project, looping will not be possible. FLUE Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and/or interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) RVi Planning + Landscape Architecture | 5 of 7 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA PL2021000620 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. Due to buildout of the surrounding properties as well as the location of off-site preserve areas, interconnection is not possible. FLUE Policy 7.4: The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. Per LDC 6.06.02, the project will include 5’ sidewalks located on either side of the street and between units. These sidewalks provide residents with walkability within the project. Additionally, the project will provide a range of housing types with a significant affordability component as outlined in the companion RPUD application. CCME Policy 6.1.1: For the County’s Urban Designated Area, Estates Designated Area, Conservation Designated Area, and Agricultural/Rural Mixed Use District, Rural-Industrial District and Rural-Settlement Area District as designated on the FLUM, native vegetation shall be preserved through the application of the following preservation and vegetation retention standards and criteria, unless the development occurs within the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) where the ACSC standards referenced in the Future Land Use Element shall apply. In accordance with Section 3.05.07.H.1.f.vi.b, off-site land donations provided at a 4:1 ratio may be utilized to satisfy the native vegetation preservation requirement. As determined by the native vegetation present on the Project site prior to clearing, the Collier County native vegetation preservation requirement totals 0.24± acre and the utilization of off-site lands at a 4:1 ratio would result in the requirement of a 0.96± acre off-site land donation (i.e., 0.24 acre x 4 = 0.96 acre). Compensation for SFWMD and COE wetland impacts will be provided through the preservation and enhancement of a 25.95± acre Off-Site Mitigation Parcel. The Parcel is located within the limits of the Belle Meade NRPA, an area of Collier County targeted for acquisition and protection by the state, is surrounded by other state owned lands, provides habitat for listed species, and also provides a corridor for wildlife movement through the Picayune Strand State Forest. The Off-Site Mitigation Parcel is comprised of 25.78± acres of native vegetation and therefore exceeds the 0.96± acre off-site native vegetation preservation requirement. The Off-Site Mitigation Parcel will be enhanced through the removal of exotic vegetation, preserved in perpetuity, and protected via a conservation easement dedicated to the SFWMD and Collier County. CCME Objective 7.1: The County shall direct incompatible land uses away from listed animal species and their habitats. The County relies on the listing process of State and Federal agencies to identify species that require special protection because of their endangered, threatened, or species of special concern status. Listed animal species are those species that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission has designated as endangered, threatened, or species of special concern, in accordance with Rules 68A-27.003, 68A-27.004, and 68A-27.005, F.A.C. 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) RVi Planning + Landscape Architecture | 6 of 7 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA PL2021000620 and those species designated by various federal agencies as Endangered and Threatened species published in 50 CFR 17. Within the environmental report, the listed species survey concluded that no listed species were found within the property boundary. A Bald Eagle nest has been documented within 660 feet of the proposed project and the developer will coordinate with Collier County and USFWS regarding applicable guidelines and permitting requirements. ENVIRONMENTAL As outlined in the Environmental Report prepared by Passarella & Associates, Inc., the site consists of undeveloped forested and non-forested uplands. In addition to wetland areas that contain high levels of exotic vegetation. Per the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS), a total of two vegetative associations and land uses where identified on the property. The dominate habitat type located on the property is Disturbed Land, Hydric. The listed species survey conducted on the property documented no listed species within the Property. A small western portion of the project site is located within 660 feet of a Bald Eagle Nest. Prior to construction activities, the developer will coordinate with Collier County and the USFWS regarding applicable guidelines and permitting requirements. The forthcoming PUD application identify any required preservation area in full compliance with the GMP and LDC. A letter from the Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, indicates no significant archaeological or historical sites are recorded or likely to be present within the subject property. As noted above, the development will meet the required minimum preservation and vegetation retention requirements through a donation of 25.78 acres of an Off-site Mitigation Parcel, as detailed in the attached Environmental Report prepared by Passarella and Associates. The enhancement and preservation of the Off-Site Mitigation Parcel and its connectivity to the Picayune Strand State Forest will benefit the wildlife species known to utilize the area and will function as a corridor for wildlife movement. The proposed Off-Site Mitigation Parcel will be of greater regional ecological value and will also provide greater long-term value than additional preservation efforts of the degraded on-site wetlands. Based upon this information, the site is suitable for increased densities due to a lack of environmental sensitivity and on-site natural resources, and significant off-site mitigation commitment. INFRASTRUCTURE Access to the subject property is proposed via two connections to Carman Drive. The northern connection will be limited to an egress only and southern connection will be a full access connection. As outlined in the Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) prepared by TR Transportation Consultants, Inc., included an assumption of 212 single-family units only, on order to provide a worst-case scenario, and demonstrates no roadway segments show a significant impact as a result of the development of traffic being added to the roadway network. Carman Drive is a private road owned by Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC, which will be improved to county standards prior to site development. These improvements have been approved and reviewed by Collier County under PL2018000046. 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) RVi Planning + Landscape Architecture | 7 of 7 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA PL2021000620 Potable water and sanitary sewer for this project will be provided by Collier County Utilities (CCU) through existing infrastructure located along Rattlesnake Hammock Road. Exhibit IV.E. demonstrates the property’s proximity to available public infrastructure including parks, schools, fire, and EMS services. This data reflects that the subject property is an appropriate location for the addition of density, and the compact development pattern will effectively utilize the County’s investment in public infrastructure in this area. CONCLUSION In summary, the proposed site-specific text amendment is justified as follows: 1) The proposed amendment will provide an appropriate location for market rate and affordable workforce housing and provides for a transition in density in an area where it is appropriate and will reduce the impacts on transportation networks. 2) The proposed amendment will facilitate a live-work opportunity in an urban-designated area and allow residents to walk short distances for goods, services, and employment. 3) The proposed amendment will allow for a compact and contiguous development pattern along a major arterial thoroughfare with available public services and infrastructure surrounded by other mixed used planned developments. 4) Will be compatible with adjacent existing and approved developments. Accordingly, the Applicant respectfully requests approval of this petition. 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Exhibit G Proof of Ownership (Warranty Deed) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Market Study 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) RENTAL APARTMENT AND DETACHED BUILD TO RENT MARKET STUDY FOR CARMAN DRIVE 15 PARCEL WEST OF AND ON CARMAN DRIVE JUST NORTH OF RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Revised January 30, 2022 Prepared for Carman Drive 15, LLC Mr. David Torres 7742 Alico Road Fort Myers, FL 33912 Prepared by Real Estate Econometrics, Inc. Real Estate Econometrics, Inc. Suite 100 707 Orchid Drive Naples, Florida 34102 (239) 269-1341 Ree-i.com 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Background Carman Drive 15, LLC (“Applicant”) is submitting a comprehensive growth management plan change to modify the 15 +/- acre tract (“Subject Property”) that is located west of and on Carman Drive just north of Rattlesnake Hammock Road in Collier County, Florida (“County”). The Applicant wishes to modify the future land use element through a Growth Management Plan Amendment (“GMPA”) and create a residential planned unit development (“RPUD”) on the site for up to 212 multi-family rental apartment or low-rise condominium units on the property. The underlying land use designation for the Subject Property is Urban Residential Fringe which only permits 1.5 density units per acre. Collier County staff has requested a market study (“Study”) that addresses the market for multi-family rental apartment or detached build to rent market for the Subject Property. The Consultant is well-versed in preparing real estate needs analysis and market studies especially in the Southwest Florida marketplace. the Study is comprised of four parts; the rental multi-family market definition and description, the rental market supply and demand analysis, conclusions and a commercial demand analysis for the area. 1.0 Potential Multi-Family Rental Unit Market Development The Client seeks to develop the 212 multi-family rental units on the site as either a small rental apartment complex or detached build to rent neighborhood. The Consultant performed the following analysis on the Collier County rental apartment market to determine how the proposed 212 multi-family rental units would affect the rental apartment market. Market Area Definition Due to the development of the Collier County urban area west of Interstate 75, future population growth in the County is now focused along the Immokalee Road corridor heading east and along U.S. 41 East heading in the same direction. Residential development is following those growth areas including up and down Collier Boulevard. The Subject Property is located northeast of the Collier Boulevard/Rattlesnake Hammock Road intersection, which is an integral location for the future commercial and supporting residential growth in the County. This area is showing recent significant growth with the opening of the Collier County Regional Sports Park and the announcement of Uline opening a major distribution center in the City Gate Park of Commerce to the north and the rapid commercial growth taking place at the U.S. 41 East and Collier Boulevard to the south. This intersection is between those two rapid growth areas. 1 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Apartment complexes are being developed in all areas of the County to address the significant demand for rental apartments. That demand is being fueled by the significant increase in real estate prices that is forcing people to move into lower cost housing (while rental prices are increasing at the same time, they are still lower than a mortgage payment on for sale housing) and by workers who cannot afford for sale housing thus seek housing that is both affordable and near their workplaces. Since apartment complexes are being developed mostly in the urban area of the County, the Consultant determined the market area to be an approximately 317 square mile area that encompasses the urban and urban fringe areas of the County. The Consultant utilized the ESRI Business Analyst GIS program to obtain demographic data and to include all potential rental m complexes located within the boundaries of the Subject Property’s market area. Figure 1.1 below depicts the market area for the Subject Property . Figure 1.1 Subject Property Market Area Source: ESRI ArcGIS Business Analyst Mapping System 2 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Market Area Demographic Detail Table 1.1 on the next page depicts the 2010 U.S. Census demographic profile updated through 2025 of the population that lives within the 317.18 square-mile market area of the subject site. It is important to note that the U.S. Census Bureau uses the Decennial Census as the basis for issuing their annual American Community Survey census data that is used in the demand section of this report. The 2020 ACS report was the most recent data source available at the time of this report. Table 1.1 Market Area Demographic and Income Profile Source: ESRI and U.S. Census Bureau 3 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Also important to the development of this multi-family rental unit project is the location of businesses and subsequent employment centers located near the subject site. Figure 1.2 below shows businesses by employee size near the Subject Property that would benefit from having residential offerings available to their employees. The Subject Property is located in a burgeoning area of the County and as the population increases, housing will be needed to accommodate that growth. That growth will also foster new commercial opportunities that will service that growth and also provide additional employment opportunities. The employees fulfilling the employment needs of the future commercial opportunities will need rental housing nearby as places to live near their work. Figure 1.2 Businesses by Employment Size Source: ESRI ArcGIS Business Analyst Mapping System Table 1.2 on the next page shows the top 25 employers in Collier County. 4 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Table 1.2 Collier County Top 25 Employers Source: Southwest Florida Regional Economic Alliance Of the top 25 employers in Collier County, the Collier County Public Schools, Publix, Walmart, Physicians Regional, Gulf Bay Group of Companies and the Naples Lakes Country Club are nearby the Subject Site. Despite an economy that relies a great deal on real estate, construction and tourism, the industry mix for the Naples MSA is not severely out of line with U.S. averages. The shares of employment devoted to the Trade, Transportation & Utilities; Financial Activities; Information; and Education & Health Services industries are within about 100 basis points (“bps”) of the national norms. 5 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Figure 3.3 below shows the industry mix within the Naples Metropolitan Statistical Area (“MSA”). Figure 3.3 Source: Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation, Labor Market Statistics The largest differences from the national norms are in Leisure & Hospitality (+939 bps); Manufacturing (-592 bps); Professional & Business Services (-284 bps); Other Services (+249 bps); and Government (-596 bps). Given the number of wealthy retirees who make Naples at least their winter home, it is not surprising to see larger shares of employment in industries that cater to this population. Although the share of Health Services was not significantly different from the U.S. share, it has increased by about 200 bps since 1996. The increase of industries outside of construction and leisure/hospitality will continue to diversify the market economy and will continue to increase the median income leading to an increase in the demand for multi- family rental unit living as a residential choice. Although the nearby employment hubs will provide a source of future residents, the demographics trends and lifestyle choices will also determine the subject site’s demand potential. 6 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Figure 1.4 below depicts the in-demand labor force by occupation with a 5-mile radius of the Subject Property. All types of sales representatives make up the largest amount of the labor force in this area followed closely by office/administration, food preparation, building maintenance, management, construction and health practices. These seven categories were analyzed since individually, they each comprised over 5% of the market area work force. Four of those seven labor force definitions exceed the percentage of the County wide percentages. That indicates a greater concentration of sales, office administration, food preparation and building maintenance employees are located within the 5-mile radius. In addition, the seven definitions account for 71.7% of the 16+ adults in the 5-mile radius. Figure 1.4 In-Demand Labor Force by Occupation within 5-Mile Radius of Subject Property Source: ESRI and U.S. Census Bureau The labor force makeup within five miles of the site would benefit from accessibility to market-rate rental multi-family as would the businesses located in the same area by providing more affordable rental opportunities for their employees. The next section of the report addresses the rental apartment needs of the seven labor force in-demand definitions the meet or exceed 5% of the County adults 16+ and total 71.7% of the labor force in the Market Area. 7 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) 2.0 Five-Mile Market Area Employment Housing Need Analysis To calculate the need for the apartment rents to address nearby employment, the Consultant determined the wage qualifications of the seven labor force definitions defined previously. The Consultant used the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (“FDOE”) 2021-2022 Regional Demand Occupations List (“RDOL”) for the Southwest Florida region (WDA24) as the data from this list is the closest micro list to Collier County. The RDOL utilizes the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics Standard Occupational Classifications (“SOC”) to define specific jobs. Appendix A, Page 33 shows the entire list for the specific SOC-related jobs that make up the seven definitions. The Consultant generated a weighted average hourly wage for each of the seven definitions and calculated annual incomes for those even definitions based on those weighted averages. Table 2.1 below shows those calculations. Table 2.1 In-Demand Job Types and Annual Incomes within 5-Miles of Subject Site Job Type Annual Openings 2020-21 Hourly Wage Weighted Average Annual Income SALES 777 $36.97 $76,899 OFFICE/ADMINISTRATIVE 3,671 $32.91 $68,451 FOOD PREPARATION 400 $32.65 $67,907 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 689 $18.23 $37,922 MANAGEMENT 183 $42.32 $88,021 CONSTRUCTION 3,439 $24.45 $50,860 HEALTH PRACTICES 6,358 $25.00 $52,004 Source: Florida Department of Economic Opportunity Table 2.2 below indicates the potential monthly rent payment based on household incomes using the rule of thumb that no more than 30% of monthly income should be used toward housing. Table 2.2. 30% of Gross Income used for Housing Household Income Monthly Income Monthly Payment @ 30% 40,000 3,333 1,000 50,000 4,167 1,250 60,000 5,000 1,500 69,659 5,805 1,741 70,000 5,833 1,750 80,000 6,667 2,000 90,000 7,500 2,250 100,000 8,333 2,500 Source: Consultant 8 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Table 2.3 below shows the range of affordable housing incomes based on the County median household income of $84,300 (Appendix B, Page 34) for a four (4) person household. Table 2.3 Household Incomes by Percent of Median Household Income (AMI) at $84,300. Household Income Percent of Median Income $67,440 80% $84,300 100% $101,160 120% Median Household Income (AMI): $84,300 Source: Florida Housing Finance Corporation The $84,300 median income for Collier County is based on a family of four (4). In order to calibrate the job types and annual incomes shown in Table 2.1 above, the Consultant utilized the median income for one (1) person occupying a residential unit as shown in Appendix B, Page 34. The AMI for a one (1) person residential unit is $59,085. Table 2.4 below shows those affordable housing income levels for one (1) person occupying a residential unit. Table 2.4 Household Incomes by Percent of Median Household Income (AMI) at $59,085 Household Income Percent of Median Income $47,250 80% $59,085 100% $70,920 120% Median Household Income (AMI): $59,085 Source: Florida Housing Finance Corporation Using the 30% of income for housing rule, Table 2.5 below shows the range of rents that would fall in the 80% - 120% affordable housing category with the AMI of $59,085. Table 2.5 Monthly Rent Payment by AMI Affordable Housing Range Household Income Percent of Median Income Monthly Income Monthly Payment @ 30% $47,250 80% $3,939 $1,182 $59,085 100% $4,924 $1,477 $70,902 120% $5,909 $1,773 Median Household Income (AMI): $59,085 Source: Florida Housing Finance Corporation and Consultant 9 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Finally, Table 2.6 below matches up the top seven (7) jobs annual incomes with the affordable housing percentile based on the County’s AMI of $59,085 for a one (1) person per residential unit. Table 2.6 Top Seven In-Demand Jobs Incomes and AMI Affordable Housing Range Job Type Annual Openings 2020-21 Hourly Wage Weighted Average Annual Income Affordable Housing Percentile SALES 777 $36.97 $76,899 130.2% OFFICE/ADMINISTRATIVE 3,671 $32.91 $68,451 115.9% FOOD PREPARATION 400 $32.65 $67,907 114.9% BUILDING MAINTENANCE 689 $18.23 $37,922 64.2% MANAGEMENT 183 $42.32 $88,021 149.0% CONSTRUCTION 3,439 $24.45 $50,860 86.1% HEALTH PRACTICES 6,358 $25.00 $52,004 88.0% Source: Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, Florida Housing Finance Corporation and Consultant Based on the analysis of the labor force within the 5-mile area of the subject site, the Applicant is proposing that 20% (42) of the units be identified as affordable (fall within the 80% to 120% of the one (1) person median household income of $59,085 (median household income of $84,300 for a four (4) person household). 3.0 Market Analysis Market Area Supply Shown on the next page in Table 3.1 is the existing and developing rental apartment complexes located in all of Collier County. This table is the latest (February 2021) Collier County quarterly rental apartment inventory available at the time of this report. (Rest of Page Left Intentionally Blank) 10 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Table 3.1 Collier County Quarterly Rental Apartment Inventory Source: Collier County Community and Human Services Division Property Name Total # of Units in Development Occupancy Rate Total Available Units as of Jan 15, 2 02 1 College Park 210 100.0%0 Windsong Club 120 95.0%6 Summer Lakes 1&2 416 99.8%1 Bear Creek 108 100.0%0 Saddlebrook Village 140 100.0%0 Whistler's Green 168 100.0%0 Jasmine Cay 73 98.6%1 Osprey's Landing 176 100.0%0 Villas of Capri 235 90.6%22 Whistler's Cove 240 100.0%0 Noah's Landing 264 98.9%3 Tuscan Isle 298 100.0%0 Brittany Bay 392 98.7%5 Naples Place I-III 170 100.0%0 Briar Landings 240 99.6%1 The Point at Naples (Heron Park)248 84.3%39 Meadow Brook Preserve 268 94.8%14 Mer Soleil 320 87.2%41 Waverley Place 300 98.3%5 Advenir Aventine 350 94.6%19 Somerset Palms 169 94.7%9 Oasis Naples 216 100.0%0 AlVista at Golden Gate/Sabal Key 200 92.0%16 Aster at Lely Resort 308 98.1%6 Inspira Apartments 304 96.7%10 Meadow Lakes 252 99.6%1 River Reach 556 99.3%4 Alvista at Laguna Bay 456 90.4%44 Sierra Grande at Naples 300 92.0%24 Belvedere At Quail Run 162 100.0%0 Milano Lakes 296 94.6%16 The Springs at Hammock Cove 340 89.7%35 Bermuda Island 360 97.8%8 Malibu Lakes 356 98.6%5 Orchid Run 262 96.2%10 Addison Place 294 96.6%10 Arium Gulfshore 368 90.5%35 Laurel Ridge 78 100.0%0 Goodlette Arms 242 100.0%0 Naples 701 188 93.6%12 Wild Pines of Naples 1&2 200 99.5%1 Berkshire Reserve (Daili of Naples)146 97.3%4 Legacy Naples Apartments 304 79.9%61 Lago Apartments 320 75.3%80 Active M arket Rate Total 11,4 13 95.2%548 Pine Ridge Commons (2021)375 ---- Crest at Naples (2021)200 ---- Edge 75 (2021)320 ---- Allura (2022)304 ---- The Haldeman (Pelican Apartments) (2022)400 ---- Courthouse Shadows (2023)300 ---- Tree Farm Apartments (2023)286 ---- Blue Coral Apartments (2023)234 Carman 15 LLC (Proposed) (2024)212 Hammock Park 265 (2024)265 ---- Immokalee Rd. & 4th Street Apartments (2025)400 Creekside Apartments (2025)300 ---- M arket Total 15,0 09 96 .3%54 8 Heritage Villas 41 90.2%4 Garden Lake 65 98.5%1 Sanders Pines 41 100.0%0 Farm Worker Village (non-farmworker)276 98%5 Willowbrook Place 41 95.1%2 Main Street Village 79 100.0%0 Summer Glenn 45 100.0%0 Esparanza 47 100.0%0 Bromelia Place 30 100.0%0 Southern Villas 35 97.1%1 Oak Haven 160 97.5%4 Eden Gardens 1&2 92 96.7%3 Immokalee Apartments 100 100.0%0 Crestview Park 1&2 304 97.0%9 Timber Ridge 34 100.0%0 Cypress Run 39 100.0%0 Sub-Total Immokalee 1,429 9 8.0%29 Grand Total 16 ,43 8 9 7.17%577 Collier County Community and Human Services Division Quarterly Rental Apartment Inventory Survey February 2021 ***Information deemed reliable but should be independently verified*** 11 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) The previous table shows a mixture of subsidized and market rate rental apartment complexes. For purposes of this study, the subsidized apartment complexes were removed along with the apartment complexes in Immokalee as the Subject Property is not seeking to acquire subsidized grants and the Immokalee apartments are outside of the Subject Property market area. Market Rate Rental Apartments Market rate rental apartments were the first developed in the county, with subsidized housing starting in the late 1980’s to accommodate the increasing employment for hotels and other hospitality related industries. There is a total of 14,609 market rate rental units in Collier County. The 14,609 market rate rental units used in the supply analysis accounts for 91.09% of the total supply in the County. The increase in market rate rental apartment supply of 3- and 4-bedroom units did not begin until 2000 when the availability of affordable family accommodations was restricting due to rapidly rising home prices. Home prices are still on the rise, which continues to create a demand for the larger market rate rental apartment units. Most of the market rate rental apartment communities are located on major arterial roadways allowing for easy access to a wider market area. Market rate rental apartment complexes prefer to be located closer to employment centers, entertainment venues and other support facilities to attract tenants. Average occupancy rate for market rate rental apartments is 96.0% (Collier County Apartment Market 1st Qtr. 2021 Performance Summary (Appendix C, Page 35), which is indicative of a very tight under-supplied rental market. Table 3.2 on the next page shows the market rate rental apartment complexes from the latest Collier County quarterly rental apartment inventory that are used in this report. (Rest of Page left Intentionally Blank) 12 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Table 3.2 Collier County Market Rate Apartment Complexes Source: Collier County Community and Human Services Division Property Name Total # of Units in Development Occupancy Rate Total Available Units as of Jan 15, 20 21 College Park 210 100.0%0 Windsong Club 120 95.0%6 Summer Lakes 1&2 416 99.8%1 Bear Creek 108 100.0%0 Saddlebrook Village 140 100.0%0 Whistler's Green 168 100.0%0 Jasmine Cay 73 98.6%1 Osprey's Landing 176 100.0%0 Villas of Capri 235 90.6%22 Whistler's Cove 240 100.0%0 Noah's Landing 264 98.9%3 Tuscan Isle 298 100.0%0 Brittany Bay 392 98.7%5 Naples Place I-III 170 100.0%0 Briar Landings 240 99.6%1 The Point at Naples (Heron Park)248 84.3%39 Meadow Brook Preserve 268 94.8%14 Mer Soleil 320 87.2%41 Waverley Place 300 98.3%5 Advenir Aventine 350 94.6%19 Somerset Palms 169 94.7%9 Oasis Naples 216 100.0%0 AlVista at Golden Gate/Sabal Key 200 92.0%16 Aster at Lely Resort 308 98.1%6 Inspira Apartments 304 96.7%10 Meadow Lakes 252 99.6%1 River Reach 556 99.3%4 Alvista at Laguna Bay 456 90.4%44 Sierra Grande at Naples 300 92.0%24 Belvedere At Quail Run 162 100.0%0 Milano Lakes 296 94.6%16 The Springs at Hammock Cove 340 89.7%35 Bermuda Island 360 97.8%8 Malibu Lakes 356 98.6%5 Orchid Run 262 96.2%10 Addison Place 294 96.6%10 Arium Gulfshore 368 90.5%35 Laurel Ridge 78 100.0%0 Goodlette Arms 242 100.0%0 Naples 701 188 93.6%12 Wild Pines of Naples 1&2 200 99.5%1 Berkshire Reserve (Daili of Naples)146 97.3%4 Legacy Naples Apartments 304 79.9%61 Lago Apartments 320 75.3%80 Active M arket Rate Total 11,4 13 9 5.2%54 8 Pine Ridge Commons (2021)375 ---- Crest at Naples (2021)200 ---- Edge 75 (2021)320 ---- Allura (2022)304 ---- The Haldeman (Pelican Apartments) (2022)400 ---- Courthouse Shadows (2023)300 ---- Tree Farm Apartments (2023)286 ---- Blue Coral Apartments (2023)234 Carman 15 LLC (Proposed) (2024)212 Hammock Park 265 (2024)265 ---- Immokalee Rd. & 4th Street Apartments (2025)400 Creekside Apartments (2025)300 ---- M arket Total 15,00 9 9 6.3 %54 8 Collier County Community and Human Services Division Quarterly Rental Apartment Inventory Survey February 2021 ***Information deemed reliable but should be independently verified*** 13 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Table 3.4 below shows the proposed apartment units approved and/or under construction that are coming to the market by year. Table 3.4 Collier County Proposed/Under Construction Apartments Year Units 2021 895 2022 704 2023 820 2024 477 2025 700 3,596 Source: Collier County Growth Management and Development Services, and Consultant The aging of market rate rental apartments must also be considered. 38.76% of the market rate rental apartments in Collier County are more than 20 years old. A national report by Apartmentlist.com noted that the balance of new and old units affects the rents being charged. The report stated the percentage of rental units less than 10 years old is at an all-time low in the Naples area. The report also shows that rentals over 30 years old increased 33% from 2000 to 2016 while buildings aged out so that the share of rentals 10 years old or less declined by 26%. The result of the study is that the cost of renting a house or apartment isn’t likely to go down in older units until there are enough new ones coming into the market to replace them. Note Appendix D, Page 38 where the report was referenced in the Naples Daily News editorial September 7, 2018. The current (1st Qtr. 2021) real estate market is being fueled by an influx of buyers heading to Florida and the Collier County area who are fleeing northern states due to the ramifications of the Covid-19 pandemic. That has put pressure on the multi-family rental market to produce rental units to accommodate this surge in new permanent residents as explained in a May 25, 2021 Wink News article (Appendix E, Page 40). 2020 saw a significant increase in multi-family rental units brought on line with 940 units constructed. There will still be a need even with the proposed multi-family rental units in the pipeline. Chart 3.1 on the next page shows the number of rental apartment units that were brought on line by year in Collier County since 1975. 14 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Chart 3.1 Apartments Built by Year in Collier County Source: Collier County Property Appraiser Rental housing outside of apartments should also be considered in the supply side of the analysis. The Consultant took a snapshot of the available rental housing units available for rent as of January 20, 2022. The research included Trulia.com, Zillow.com, Homes.com and Rent.com sites as shown in Appendix F, Page 43. Table 3.5 below shows the rental units available by website on that date and the average number of rental housing units to be added to the supply side of the analysis. Table 3.5 Rental Homes in Collier County on January 20, 2022 Rental Site Units for Rent Trulia.com 125 Zillow.com 125 Homes.com 111 Rent.com 129 Average: 123 Source: Trulia .com, Zillow.com, Homes.com & Rent.com 15 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Market Area Demand The first step in determining market demand is to start with the current population of the rental apartment market area. The market area covers many Collier County planning areas and bisects a few of them. In order to determine an accurate population, forecast for the rental apartment market area, the Consultant utilized the American Community Survey (“ACS”) which is the annual update to the 2010 Census performed the by the US Census Bureau. The ACS is an ongoing survey that provides vital information on a yearly basis about our nation and its people. Information from the survey generates data that help determine how more than $675 billion in federal and state funds are distributed each year. Table 3.5 on the next page is the 2020-2025 ACS market area housing profile. This table is the updated ACS survey for the 317.18 square mile market area. It shows the current population for this market area is 291,078. The ACS survey also estimates the same data in the report for 2025, which matches the County’s 5-year planning horizon. ACS estimates that the market area population will be 316,431 in 2025. The census annual percent growth of 1.60% was used to calculate the annual population from 2020 to 2025. (Rest of Page left Intentionally Blank) 16 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Table 3.5 2020-2025 Market Area Housing Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau Table 3.5 also shows that the percent of renter occupied housing units is 20.6% in 2020 and increases to 21.5% in 2025. That is an increase of 0.2% annually and is used in the calculation of the market area demand. Table 3.6 on the next page establishes the household income and corresponding monthly rental payment. The median household income in Collier County in 2020 is $84,300. The table shows the income ranges that are used in the calculation of demand. Current rents are approaching $3,000 a month as shown in the area market reports in Appendix G, Page 46. Table 3.6 Monthly Rental Payment Calculations 17 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Household Income Monthly Household Income Monthly Rental Payment @ 30% $40,000 $3,333 $1,000 $50,000 $4,167 $1,250 $60,000 $5,000 $1,500 $63,202 $5,267 $1,580 $70,000 $5,833 $1,750 $80,000 $6,667 $2,000 $90,000 $7,500 $2,250 $100,000 $8,333 $2,500 $110,000 $9,167 $2,750 $120,000 $10,000 $3,000 Source: The Consultant The percent of households by income is shown in Table 4.5 on the next page. The percentage of households in the up to $100,000 category ranges from the current 65.0% to 61.1% in 2025. That is a reduction of 0.8% annually and is used in the calculation of the market area demand. (Rest of Page left Intentionally Blank) 18 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Table 4.5. Apartment Study Market Area Demographic and Income Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau 19 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Table 4.6 below shows the renter-occupied housing units by contract rent. The number of units in the $800 to $3,000 range is 23,221. That is 81.13% of the 28,621 total cash rent units and is used in the calculation of the rental apartment market area demand. That data range is highly reliable data according to ACS. Table 4.6. Apartment Study Market Area Housing Summary Source: U.S. Census Bureau Table 4.7 below shows the rental apartment study market area demand calculation using the data points previously explained in Tables 4.3 through 4.6. The population is increased annually. The percent of rental households were reduced annually and multiplied with the corresponding annual households to obtain the annual rental households. 20 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) The rental households were then multiplied by the percentage of households with incomes up to $120,000. That calculation establishes the annual demand for market rate rental housing units in the market area. That annual number is then multiplied by the percent of rental units with rents in the $800 to $3,000 range to establish the demand for market rate rental apartment units. That demand is slowly increasing over the next five years using 2020 as the base year. Table 4.7 Apartment Study Market Area Demand Calculation Year Population Total Households Percent Rental Rental Households % With Income up to $120k Annual Demand % of Units with rent $800-$3,000 Unit Demand 2020 291,078 126,131 20.6% 25,983 70.7% 18,370 81.13% 14,904 2021 296,149 128,415 20.8% 26,685 68.8% 18,354 81.13% 14,891 2022 301,219 130,699 21.0% 27,395 66.9% 18,316 81.13% 14,860 2023 306,290 132,983 21.1% 28,113 64.9% 18,256 81.13% 14,812 2024 311,360 135,267 21.3% 28,839 63.0% 18,174 81.13% 14,745 2025 316,431 137,551 21.5% 29,573 61.1% 18,069 81.13% 14,660 2026 321,502 139,835 21.7% 30,316 59.2% 17,941 81.13% 14,556 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau and the Consultant Table 4.8 on the next page shows the same market area demand calculation from Table 2.7 above and adds the existing market rate rental apartments and the future rental apartment complexes in the development process shown in Table 4.2. Table 4.8 on the next page establishes that there is a current deficit of nearly 3,500 market rate rental apartments in the market area and falling to a deficit of 159 market rate rental apartments in 2026. (Rest of Page left Intentionally Blank) 21 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Table 4.8 Apartment Study Market Area Supply – Demand Analysis Year Population Total Households Percent Rental Rental Households % With Income up to $120k Annual Demand % of Units with rent $800-$3,000 Unit Demand Market Supply Surplus/ Deficit Units 2020 291,078 126,131 20.6% 25,983 70.7% 18,370 81.13% 14,904 11,413 -3,491 2021 296,149 128,415 20.8% 26,685 68.8% 18,354 81.13% 14,891 12,431 -2,460 2022 301,219 130,699 21.0% 27,395 66.9% 18,316 81.13% 14,860 13,258 -1,602 2023 306,290 132,983 21.1% 28,113 64.9% 18,256 81.13% 14,812 14,201 -611 2024 311,360 135,267 21.3% 28,839 63.0% 18,174 81.13% 14,745 14,377 -368 2025 316,431 137,551 21.5% 29,573 61.1% 18,069 81.13% 14,660 15,412 752 2026 321,502 139,835 21.7% 30,316 59.2% 17,941 81.13% 14,556 15,412 856 Source: Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section, Collier County Property Appraiser, ESRI ARCgis mapping system and the Consultant Adding the proposed 212 proposed multi-family rental units to the market supply (the units would most likely be added in 2023) shows that a deficit of market rate rental multi-family units will continue and eventually turn positive in 2025 if market supply/demand factors stay constant as shown in Table 4.9 below. Table 4.9 Apartment Study Market Area Supply – Demand Analysis with Subject Property Units Included Year Population Total Households Percent Rental Rental Households % With Income up to $120k Annual Demand % of Units with rent $800- $3,000 Unit Demand Market Supply Market Supply with Subject Property Surplus/ Deficit Units 2020 291,078 126,131 20.6% 25,983 70.7% 18,370 81.13% 14,904 11,413 11,413 -3,491 2021 296,149 128,415 20.8% 26,685 68.8% 18,354 81.13% 14,891 12,431 12,431 -2,460 2022 301,219 130,699 21.0% 27,395 66.9% 18,316 81.13% 14,860 13,258 13,258 -1,602 2023 306,290 132,983 21.1% 28,113 64.9% 18,256 81.13% 14,812 14,201 14,413 -399 2024 311,360 135,267 21.3% 28,839 63.0% 18,174 81.13% 14,745 14,377 14,589 -156 2025 316,431 137,551 21.5% 29,573 61.1% 18,069 81.13% 14,660 15,412 15,624 964 2026 321,502 139,835 21.7% 30,316 59.2% 17,941 81.13% 14,556 15,412 15,624 1,068 Source: Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section, Collier County Property Appraiser, ESRI ArcGIS mapping system and the Consultant 5.0 RESIDENTIAL UNITS NEEDED TO SUPPORT COMMERICAL DEVELOPMENT There is a lack of commercial development in East Naples as is shown in Section 6.0. There is a significant amount of potential commercial square feet to be developed within Activity Center #7 including the 200,000+ at the southeast corner of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard. Activity Center #7 is an anomaly of all the activity centers in the County in that it only allows for 1.5 units per acre and up to 2.5-units per acre via the transfer of up to once dwelling unit per acre from lands designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending. 22 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) The commercial acreage is located within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict ("Subdistrict"), which was created to provide transitional densities between Urban Designated Area and the Agricultural/Rural Area. The lower densities of this Subdistrict do not support the significant development of commercial opportunities identified in the East Naples Community Development Plan described in Section 6.0 of this report or as needed at this high traffic volume intersection. To demonstrate the residential unit demand needed to support the potential commercial supply identified within Activity Center #7, the Consultant first determined the per capita commercial demand in the County then determined the average persons per household in nearby apartment complexes and multiplied that number by the number of potential apartment units that are to be developed within a mile of the activity center and multiplied that per capita population along with the future per capita 5-year population growth within 2.5-miles by the demand to calculate the total square feet of commercial demand nearby. The most reliable indicator of commercial market demand in the County is to determine the amount of commercial square footage built in the County then divide that total amount by the County population to arrive at square feet per capita (person) in the existing market. 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. The Consultant utilized the 2014 commercial inventory spreadsheets by planning area as provided by the Collier County Growth Management Department (“CCGMD”) to determine the total amount of commercial square footage built in the County as of 2015. The 2014 commercial inventory is the latest available data from the County as of this report. The Consultant then used the 2014 Collier County population from the CCGMD to calculate the commercial square footage per capita in the County. The Commercial square foot demand per capita in Collier County is 78.22 as shown in Table 5.1 on the next page. 23 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Table 5.1 Per Capita Square Feet Demand in Collier County 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 2014 Population 340,293 (October 1st Fiscal Year) Demand in Square Feet: 78.22 Source: Collier County Growth Management Department By comparison, Lee County had a 2015 Commercial Demand Forecast Report prepared by Metro Forecasting Models, the same company that is updating the Collier Interactive Growth Model (“CIGM”) adopted in September, 2007. The Lee County county-wide commercial demand per capita was 109.00 sq. ft. It was forecasted to go up to 111.53 sq. ft. per capita in 2020. (Appendix H, Page 51) The CIGM Executive Summary (Appendix I, Page 56) prepared by Van Buskirk, Ryffel and Associates, Inc. (now Metro Forecasting Models) in September 2008 focused on the future development of lands east of CR 951 in Collier County. The Subject Parcel falls within this future growth area. The CIGM summary pointed out that the build out population for this area would be 442,537 and the commercial square footage needed to support this population would be 45,498,963 square feet. The demand for commercial square feet in this area would be 102.81 sq. ft. per capita. Table 5.2 below show the potential apartment complexes within and nearby Activity Center #7. There are potentially 781 apartment units either approved or in the process of going through the County’s approval process. 24 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Table 5.2 Area Apartment Complexes Apartment Complex Units Hammock Park Apartments 265 Amerisite Property 304 Carmen 15 Property 212 Total Apartment Units 781 Source: Collier County Growth Management Department and Consultant Table 5.3 below shows the persons per household (“PPH”) average calculation for a nearby apartment unit. The average PPH is 2.88 in nearby apartment complexes where available from the U.S. Census Bureau. Table 5.3 Area Apartment Complexes Apartment Complex PPH College Park Apartments 3.63 Springs at Hammock Cove 3.26 Tuscan Isle 2.56 Saddlebrook Village 2.56 Advenir at Aventine 2.37 Persons Per Household Average: 2.88 Source: Collier County Property Appraiser, ESRI ArcGIS and Consultant Table 5.4 Population from Nearby Future Apartments Category Totals Nearby Apartments 781 PPH in Standard Apt. Complex 2.88 Total Population: 2,249 Source: Collier County Property Appraiser, ESRI ArcGIS and Consultant 5-Year population growth does not anticipate high density growth as the ACS looks primarily at existing census growth patterns and nearby land uses. As a result, the apartment unit population calculation in Table 5.4 is not included in the general population growth. Table 5.5 on the next page shows that the estimated 5-year per capita population growth for the 2.5-mile area surrounding the commercial intersection is 2,318. 25 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Table 5.5 Per 2.5-Mile, 5-Year Population Growth Source: U.S. Census, ESRI ArcGIS and Consultant Adding the two population projections together shows a future population of 4,567 within the 2.5-mile market area surrounding the commercial intersection. Table 5.6 Total 5-Year Per Capita Population Growth Totals Nearby Apartment Population 2,249 5-Year 2.5-Mile Population Growth 2,318 Total 2.5-Mile Population Growth 4,567 Source: Collier County Property Appraiser, ESRI ArcGIS, U.S. Census Bureau and Consultant The potential commercial demand coming from those 4,567 future residents is 356,248 as shown in Table 5.7 below. Table 5.7 5-Year Per Capita Commercial Square Foot Demand Totals 5-Year 2.5-mile Population & Apartment Growth 4,567 Demand per Capita: 78 2.5-Mile Commercial Sq. Ft. Demand 356,248 Source: Collier County Property Appraiser, Collier County Growth Management Division, ESRI ArcGIS, U.S. Census Bureau and Consultant 26 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) The higher density in the activity center is essential to increase commercial demand and to spur the commercial development in and around Activity Center #7 as well as support the commercial need identified in the East Naples Community Development Plan shown in Section 6.0. 6.0 THE EAST NAPLES COMMUNITY DEVEOPMENT PLAN SUPPORT This Community Development Plan (“East Naples Plan”) focuses on the East Naples Study Area and aims to embrace the area's assets, address current needs, and respond to growth and development trends in the area. Specifically, it provides a community vision for the long-term future to: Guide land uses and development Support multiple transportation types Highlight community assets/improvements Provide options for follow-up efforts to address other topics of interest to the community Provide steps on implementation The East Naples Plan was put together with the help of county staff, consultants and residents to deliver an identity to the rapidly growing area and draw businesses community members would like to see there. The East Naples plan fully supports the development of commercial opportunities. The East Naples study area has long been fueled primarily by residential growth. Figure 6.1 on the next page depicts that uneven development between residential and commercial square footage. The East Naples study area has long been unserved by commercial uses with only 11% of the square footage built in the study area compared to 15% in the unincorporated area of the County as a whole. (Rest of Page left Intentionally Blank) 27 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Figure 6.1 East Naples Commercial vs. Residential Square Foot Mix Source: Collier County East Naples Community Development Plan Commercial development generally follows residential development because commercial development requires the supporting population that is generated by residential development. Exceptions to that rule of thumb include large corporate moves that would generate residential development. In the case of the East Naples study area, residential development has typically been low density (mostly single family, villas and townhomes) thus requiring a lower amount of commercial square footage to support that population. Figure 6.2 on the next page from the East Naples Plan supports the need for increased density to drive the development and variety of commercial opportunities desired by the East Naples residents. Other limitations to commercial development include roadway connections, seasonal population and general market demand. The addition of the apartments around the Rattlesnake Hammock Road/Collier Boulevard intersection will fuel the development of commercial opportunities by providing additional demand as indicated in Section 5.0 above and significantly increase the local residential base. The apartment sites area is indicated by the red circle. 28 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Figure 6.2 East Naples Key Commercial Take Aways and Visions Source: Collier County East Naples Community Development Plan Figure 6.3 on the next page identifies site connectivity and access as a key land use concept in the development of the East Naples study area. The location of the previously mentioned apartment sites and their proximity to the potential 200,000 square feet of commercial development at the southeast corner of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard would foster easy access between the residential and commercial development along with connectivity as the apartment sites are within 1 mile of the commercial development. The apartment sites are also within walking distance of the existing and future commercial development at that intersection. 29 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Figure 6.3 East Naples Land Use Concepts Source: Collier County East Naples Community Development Plan Finally, the East Naples Plan points out that increased density and site connectivity and shared access are key short term implementation concepts that could significantly drive the development of the much-needed commercial opportunities. Figure 6.4 on the next page indicates that those two elements could be implemented within 1 to 2 years. 30 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Figure 6.4 East Naples Plan Short Term Concepts Implementation Source: Collier County East Naples Community Development Plan 31 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) 7.0 CONCLUSIONS The Consultant used all of the data and analysis in the previous sections to determine that the total supply of rental apartments and/or rental condominiums will not be adversely affected by the addition of the proposed 212 rental units. There is a current deficit of nearly 3,500 market rate rental units in the market and even with the addition of 3,150 rental units over the next 5-years, the market returns to equilibrium in the 2025. The analysis also shows that the addition of the Subject Property’s proposed 212 multi-family rental units will help alleviate some of the need for multi-family rental units in 2023 and beyond as highlighted in Table 4.9 above. With the addition of the 212 multi-family rental residential units, the Subject Property will provide a diversity of housing options, particularly market-rate workforce housing, to address gaps in the existing local housing supply. The addition of the 212 multi-family rental units along with the 569 other multi- family rental units under consideration in the immediate vicinity will provide just over 175,000 square feet of commercial demand. This demand should foster the development of nearby commercial properties. Within the 2.5-mile market area, the population growth over the next 5 years plus the development of the Always multi-family complexes will create a commercial demand for over 356,000 square feet of commercial space. The East Naples Community Development Plan calls for the development of additional commercial space. The short-term implementation plan identifies two immediate changes that would foster the development of future commercial space. The first change is to increase the density and intensity of residential development to support the needed commercial supply. The second is to create provisions that incentivize site connectivity. The development of the Subject Site will have connectivity to the large commercial parcel at the southeast corner of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard intersection. Based on the analysis of the labor force within the 5-mile area of the subject site, the Applicant is proposing that 20% (42) of the units be identified as affordable (fall within the 80% to 120% of the one (1) person median household income of $59,085 (median household income of $84,300 for a four (4) person household). 32 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) APPENDIX A FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY Workforce Development Area 24 - Charlotte, Collier, Glades, Hendry, and Lee Counties 2021-22 Regional Demand Occupations List Sorted by Occupational Title SOC Code Job Type Mean Hrly Wage Annual Openings Total Hrly Job Wages Mean Hrly Job Wage Annual Pay CONSTRUCTION 472031 Carpenters 20.15 1,068 $21,517 472051 Cement Masons and Concrete Finishers 19.95 229 4,568 119021 Construction Managers 42.34 315 13,337 131051 Cost Estimators 33.07 131 4,332 472111 Electricians 20.80 379 7,884 471011 First-Line Superv. of Construction and Extraction Workers 30.55 721 22,024 472141 Painters, Construction and Maintenance 16.89 478 8,073 472044 Tile and Marble Setters 19.96 118 2,356 3,439 $84,090 $24.45 $50,860 FOOD PREPARATION 119051 Food Service Managers 31.83 216 $6,876 351011 Chefs and Head Cooks 33.60 184 6,183 400 $13,059 $32.65 $67,907 HEALTH PRACTICES 291141 Registered Nurses 34.52 761 $26,272 291126 Respiratory Therapists 28.22 776 21,898 292099 Health Technologists and Technicians, All Other 21.43 941 20,166 119111 Medical and Health Services Managers 53.67 91 4,884 292010 Medical and Clinical Laboratory Technologists and Technicians 25.99 1,713 44,513 319092 Medical Assistants 17.31 540 9,346 499062 Medical Equipment Repairers 18.00 112 2,016 292071 Medical Records and Health Information Technicians 21.43 1,267 27,152 436013 Medical Secretaries 17.31 157 2,717 292055 Surgical Technologists 22.19 809 17,950 6,358 $158,963 $25.00 $52,004 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 499071 Maintenance and Repair Workers, General 18.23 689 $12,562 $18.23 $37,922 MANAGEMENT 119199 Managers, All Other 42.32 183 $7,744 $42.32 $88,021 SALES 112022 Sales Managers 58.58 87 $5,096 414011 Sales Representatives, Wholesale & Mfg, Tech. & Sci. Prod.44.17 127 5,609 414012 Sales Representatives, Wholesale and Manufacturing, Other 32.01 563 18,021 777 $28,726 $36.97 $76,899 OFFICE/ADMINISTRATION 113011 Administrative Services Managers 44.46 1,537 $68,334 433031 Bookkeeping, Accounting, and Auditing Clerks 20.00 699 13,979 131141 Compensation, Benefits, and Job Analysis Specialists 26.93 756 20,359 431011 First-Line Superv. of Office and Admin. Support Workers 26.71 679 18,139 3,671 $120,810 $32.91 $68,451 33 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) APPENDIX B 34 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) APPENDIX C Realpage Market Performance Summary Report Naples – Immokalee – Marco Island Apartment Market 1st Quarter, 2021 35 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) MARKET PERFORMANCE SUMMARY Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, FL First Quarter 2021 © 2021 RealPage, Inc. 1-877-325-7243.All trademarks are the properties of their respecive owners. DMCA Notice: realpage.com/dmca-notice ASO-18-151 12/13/18 36 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, FL Apartment Performance Effective rent increased 4.0% from $1,301 in 4Q20 to $1,357 in 1Q21, which resulted in an annual growth rate of 2.0%. Annual effective rent growth has averaged 2.9% since 2Q96. The market's annual rent growth rate was above the national average of -0.9%. Out of the 150 markets ranked by RealPage nationally, Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, FL was 1st for quarterly effective rent growth, and 95th for annual effective rent growth for 1Q21. The market's occupancy rate increased from 95.1% in 4Q20 to 96.0% in 1Q21, and was up from 95.5% a year ago. The market's occupancy rate was above the national average of 95.6% in 1Q21. The market's occupancy rate has averaged 93.2% since 2Q96. Market Survey Results and Forecasts Sequential 2Q20 3Q20 4Q20 1Q21 Effective Rent Per Unit $1,287 $1,282 $1,305 $1,357 Per Sq. Ft $1.31 $1.30 $1.32 $1.37 Effective Rent Growth - Annually -3.7%-4.5%-1.7%2.0% Effective Rent Growth - Quarterly -2.7%-0.4%1.8%4.0% Occupancy Rate 93.6%93.9%94.8%96.0% Occupancy Change - Annually -1.5%0.0%0.0%0.4% Occupancy Change - Quarterly -1.4%0.3%0.9%1.4% Economic Concessions Concession Value $54.00 $91.00 $76.00 $48.00 As a % of Asking Rent 4.1%6.9%5.8%3.6% Annual 2019 2020 2021F 2022F 2023F 2024F 2025F $1,333 $1,299 $1,330 $1,384 $1,451 $1,489 $1,515 $1.35 $1.32 $1.34 $1.40 $1.46 $1.50 $1.53 -2.0%-1.7%3.5%5.1%3.8%1.8%1.4% 94.8%94.3%95.2%93.1%93.7%93.9%94.1% -1.1%0.0%-0.3%-1.2%0.6%0.1%0.3% $50.50 $74.50 3.8%5.7% Month Mar-21 $1,405 $1.41 5.1% 96.1% 0.7% $98.00 6.9% Market Rank 1Q21 Market National Rank Effective Rent Per Unit $1,357 $1,421 40 Effective Rent Growth - Annually 2.6%-0.9%80 Effective Rent Growth - Quarterly 4.0%0.8%1 Occupancy Rate 96.0%95.5%78 Occupancy change - Annually 1.2%0.0%30 Occupancy change - Quarterly 1.4%-0.1%1 Concession Value $48.00 $92.00 72 Build Average 1998 1991 22 *Ranking based on Top 150 Markets 1Q21 Annual Results By Bedroom Type %Area Occ ERG Erent ERSF Studio/One bedroom 30.7%737 95.7%3.7%$1,172 $1.59 Two bedroom 48.9%1,020 96.1%1.9%$1,344 $1.32 Three + bedrooms 20.3%1,241 96.3%0.4%$1,490 $1.20 By Year Built <= 1980 4.0%533 93.0%12.6%$1,022 $1.92 1981-1990 18.8%921 97.1%2.7%$1,258 $1.37 1991-2000 23.7%971 96.7%0.2%$1,239 $1.28 2001-2010 44.4%1,024 95.6%1.1%$1,340 $1.31 2011-Current 9.1%1,085 95.1%6.0%$1,699 $1.57 REALPAGE INC.www.realpage.com37 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) APPENDIX D Naples Daily News Editorial September 18, 2018 38 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) 39 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) APPENDIX E WINK News Article on rental market pressure May 25, 2021 40 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) 41 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) 42 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) APPENDIX F Rental Housing Supply Available as of January 20, 2022 43 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Collier County Rental Homes on January 20, 2022 TRULIA – 125 Houses for Rent Zillow – 125 Houses for Rent 44 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) HOMES.COM – 111 Homes for Rent RENT.COM – 129 Homes for Rent 45 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) APPENDIX G Greystar and CoStar Apartment Market Reports 46 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Orchid Run Magnolia Square Legacy Naples Inspira Addison Place Edge 75 Lago Apartments Lago Apartments Market Survey Presented to: Johnson Development Survey Date: 11/22/2021 Properties Included in Survey: Greystar Proprietary and Confidential Information – Not for distribution or use without prior written authorization. 47 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Property Name Year Built # of units % Occupied Avg. Unit Size (SF) Avg. Mkt Rent/Unit Avg. Mkt Rent $/SF Avg. Eff Rent/Unit Avg. Eff Rent $/SF Subject Lago Apartments 2020 320 98%1054 $3,241 $3.07 $3,241 $3.07 Comp 1 Orchid Run 2015 282 97%1040 $3,223 $3.10 $3,223 $3.10 Comp 2 Magnolia Square 2021 290 66%1216 $2,767 $2.28 $2,767 $2.28 Comp 3 Legacy Naples 2018 304 96%1173 $2,806 $2.39 $2,806 $2.39 Comp 4 Inspira 2018 304 98%1059 $2,504 $2.36 $2,396 $2.26 Comp 5 Addison Place 2018 294 100%1029 $2,337 $2.27 $2,337 $2.27 Comp 6 Edge 75 2021 320 44%1012 $2,505 $2.47 $2,505 $2.47 Total/Avg (Market)2114 86%1082 $2,768 $2.57 $2,753 $2.55 Total/Avg. (Market less Subject)1794 83%1087 $2,684 $2.47 $2,665 $2.46 lNaples Naples $3.07 $3.10 $2.28 $2.39 $2.26 $2.27 $2.47 $0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500 $0.00 $0.50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50 $3.00 $3.50 Subject Comp 1 Comp 2 Comp 3 Comp 4 Comp 5 Comp 6 Avg. Mkt Rent/Unit Avg. Eff Rent/Unit Avg. Eff Rent $/SF Map 1-Orchid Run 2-Magnolia Square 3-Legacy Naples 4-Inspira 5-Addison Place 6-Edge 75 S-Lago Apartments Greystar Proprietary and Confidential Information – Not for distribution or use without prior written authorization. Competitive Analysis48 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Naples - FL PREPARED BY Gary Hains Multi-Family Market Report 49 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Rent Naples Multi-Family Following a surge in 2021, rent growth in Naples is some of the strongest in the country. The record growth comes after rents fell slightly for two years from 2019-20. After falling in Marhc and April 2020, rents gradually improved through the rest of 2020 before taking off at the start of 2021. As is the case in many peer markets, recent growth has been concentrated in high-rent submarkets where losses were steepest in the early months of the pandemic. The average rent in Central Naples is 6% higher than the metro average and more than 50% higher than it was a year ago. Naples has the second highest asking rent in Florida behind Palm Beach. Recent growth has pushed the average rent in the market over the other high-rent South Florida metros Fort Lauderdale and Miami. This is primarily due to the market's abundance of luxury units, which comprise 45% of the market compared to the national proportion of 27%, which itself reflects the metro's relative affluence. DAILY ASKING RENT PER SF 11/6/2021© 2021 CoStar Group - Licensed to FL Star Development - Milano Lakes Apartments - 913595 Page 650 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) APPENDIX H Lee County 2015 Commercial Demand Forecast Report 51 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Lee County,Florida - 2015 Forecast Report Population, Housing and Commercial Demand Thank you for purchasing this report, which contains forecasts of population growth, housing demand and demand for commercial space for goods and services for Lee County, Florida (the Cape Coral-Fort Myers Metropolitan Statistical Area or MSA). The analytical methods used to prepare these forecasts have proven to be more accurate than the industry standard of straight-line (linear) forecasts. Our goal is to maintain the most accurate forecasting models,which are based on our history of forecasting: • In 1982 the City of North Port, Florida, asked Dr.Paul Van Buskirk (author of the Metro Forecasting Mode})to forecast the population oftheircity in 2007, then 25 years into the future. In 1980 North Port had a permanent population of 6,350 people.Dr. Van Buskirk forecasted that in 2007 there would be a permanent population of 57,452; in 2010, the Census counted 57,350 people in North Port. The forecast was 99.7% accurate 25 years into the future. •In 2002 the City of Cape Coral,Florida,engaged Dr. Van Buskirk to prepare a population forecast for their city to use in planning for future commercial sites, fire stations and schools. His 2010 forecast was 155,179 permanent residents;in 2010, the Census counted 154,305 permanent residents. The information in this report can be used by businesses, property owners, developers, lenders and planners to help understand the past and future of the Lee County metro area and then use accurate forecasts in decision-making: ./ Businesses: Metro's growth forecasts help make marketing decisions because growth forecasts can be compared to forecasts in other metropolitan areas. ./ Property Owners: Housing and commercial demand forecasts help property owners understand how their land may increase or decrease in value based on the current and future supply versus demand for then' respective land uses. ./ Developers: Current and forecasted demand versus supply are used in due- diligence reviews and pro forma preparation, as well helping to broadly gauge absorption. ../Lenders: Loan requests for new construction can be compared to the forecasted Hemand for commercial or residentiayrojects. ./ Planners: opulation, housing and commerci forecasts are used to evaluate the need fJr zoning changes desired by their clienfs.I For more detailed forecasts of population,housing and commercial demand, see our website. 9001 Highland Woods Boulevard, Suite 2, Bonita Springe, FL 34135 239-913-6949 www.MetroForecasting.com Copyright 2015©Metro Foracasring Models,All Rights Resewed.Reprint permission must be requested in writing from Metro Forecast.ing Models,LLC. 52 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Lee County, Florida -Cape Coral-Fort Myers MSA Population, Housing and Commercial Demand Forecast The Lee County metro area is located in southwest Florida. In 2014 the permanent population was 679,513 according to the US Census,up from 1,414 in 1890. Metro Forecasting Models (MFM) uses proprietary modeling software to forecast the future population of this MSA in 5-year increments. Whereas forecasters often apply linear extrapolation of past census data, a technique which becomes inaccurate over longer periods,MFM forecasting methodology has been documented to be far more accurate over time. Figure 1 below is a population graph of the Lee County metro area showing actual change in population from 1950 to 2010. 1,500,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800.000 600,000 400,000 200,000 After the MFM Composite Forecast Curve is established (the blue line), similar curves are generated for both an expanding and contracting economy for the entire MSA.In statistical jargon,these similar curves are each two standard deviations from the mean (composite) curve. We find that MSA growth falls within these boundaries 95%of the time,barring catastrophic events (war, natural disaster, etc.) that permanently alter development potentiaL Figure 1 presents a summary of our population forecasts for 2020 and beyond for the Lee County metro area (Cape Coral-Fort Myers MSA). Figure 1.MFM Population Forecast in 2015 Lee County}Florida 1950 1970 1990 2010 -r: ~. df7~ ,'/MFM 2020 Pop. :;752,585 2030 2070 2110 --Population -,t.-Cens usjActual 2050 2090 --Expanding Econornv --Contracting Economy Source: USCensus &Metro Forecasting Models,lLC Page 2 Published July 2015 53 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Population Forecast Table 1 presents our specific analysis and population growth forecast for the Lee County metro area in 5-year increments for three different economies. The blue column,labeled "Composite," shows how the population will grow over time in a balanced economy. The orange column,labeled "Expanding," presents a higher forecast for the population growth curve in a "Bull Market" economy.The data presented in this column provides a reliable guide for our clients who need to understand how this MSA will grow under favorable economic conditions. The green column,labeled "Contracting," presents a lower forecast for the population growth curve in a "Bear Market" economy.The data presented in this column provides a guide for our clients who need to understand how economic trends,business decisions and government policy(national or 10caDcould affect this MSA's growth under less favorable economicconditions. As the economy cycles from bull to bear markets, the day-to-day or year-to-year population growth will revert to t.he Composite forecast.Depending upon the significance of economic trends and government and business policy,the change in growth can appear to be a never-ending boom-bust cycle. The general population tends to mentally forecast growth by what has happened over the last yea!' of their lives.If last year showed low or no growth, then next year would be the same or worse under that scenario.If last year was a goodyear,then next year will be just as good or better.The Composite forecast provides a balanced view of what the future holds for this MSA. The population forecasted in Table 1 provides a reliable guide for wise industry leaders who understand the pace of the last few years' growth does not mean that growth will continue in the same pattern.The expanding and contracting economy forecasts provide ranges for strategic planning by governments and the private sector. Table 1:lee Metro Area Population Forecast Year Composite Expanding Contracting 1970 114,069 119,811 108,502 1975 155,643 162,536 148,919 1980 204,751 212,733 196,926 1985 260,810 269,762 251,994 1990 322,901 332,663 313,250 1995 389,866 400,248 379,564 2000 460,405 471,208 449,653 2005 533,183 544,208 522,179 2010 606,905 617,966 595,839 2015 680,385 691,316 669,425 2020 752,585 763,244 741,876 2025 822,636 832,910 812,297 2030 889,850 899,650 879,974 2035 953,711 962,974 944,364 2040 1,013,862 1,022,547 1,005,089 2045 1,070,088 1,078,172 1,061,912 2050 1,122,288 1,129,768 1,114,718 2055 1,170,465 1,177,346 1,163,495 2060 1,214,694 1,220,993 1,208,309 2065 1,255,111 1,260,853 1,249,287 2070 1,291,892 1,297,107 1,28p,601 2075 1,325,245 1,329,965 1,320,454 2080 1,355,393 1,359,651 1,351,067 2085 1,382,565 1,386,398 1,378,671 2090 1,406,997 1,410,438 1,403,499 2095 1,428,915 1,431,999 1,425,780 2100 1,448,540 1,451,299 1,445,735 Source: Metro Forecasting Models,llC Published ,Jul,.I":201;J 54 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Commercial Demand Forecast Table 3 presents the Lee County metro area commercial retail trade and services demand forecast in 5-year increments. The demand for retail and officespace increases as the population grows. When the increased population meets certain thresholds, the market can support new or expanded stores and services.For example a small population may want a big-box retail store but not have enough people to support the economic investment by the retailer.In those cases, the demand for the big box store is met by neighboring communities that are large enough to meet the minimum investment expectation by the retailer.Lee County has two super-regional shopping centers that are supplemented in part by demand from Collier, Hendry and Charlotte Counties. The demand forecast shown in Table 3 is the tc Owner commercial and officespace in the MSA.Acommunity ( of commercial development allowed through local zoni Sticky Note demand for commercial space exists but supply is n 109.00sf = demand is met outside that community.For examp 111.53 sf = shopping centers may require a population of only 8,( self-sustaining, while community and regional shopp'=E,....,,~=~~,.-J need a threshold population of 30,000 and 150,000 respectively. An MSA may also have more commercial space than the MSA's population could naturally support.In these cases, demand for certain services from the population of neighboring communities may be met by the localMSA's supply. The forecasted commercial demand in Table 3, combined with the knowledge of the existing commercial supply and vacancy rates, is useful in determining how much new space will be needed in 5-year steps.Note the demand is not linear; one 5-year step may forecast a demand rate that is greater or less than the previous 5-year period. Figure 2 helps illustrate the changing demand for commercial space over time. Figure 2.Lee Metro Area Commercial Demand Forecast 1,000'5 SF 18(>-000 160,000 1.;0,000 120,000 100,000 83,939 50,0:00 40,000 20,000 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 Source:Metro Forecasting Models,LLC MFM Forecast 2060 2080 2100 -••••2010 -2020 2040 2000 Page ;) Table 3:lee Metro Area Commercial Demand Forecast- Sq. Ft.Bldg. Year 1,000'5 SF 1970 9,460 1975 13,358 19RO 1R,135 1985 24,124 1990 30,992 1995 38,735 2000 47,188 2005 56,146 2010 65,391 2015 74,717 2020 83,939 2025 92,911 2030 101,519 2035 109,683 2040 117,352 2045 124,497 2050 131,110 2055 137,193 2060 142,760 2065 147,833 2070 152,439 2075 156,606 2080 160,365 2085 163,747 2090 166,783 2095 169,503 2100 171,935 Source:Metro Forecasting Models,llC Published Jl/~l':201;'') 55 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) APPENDIX I Collier Interactive Growth Model Executive Summary 56 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) THE COLLIER INTERACTIVE GROWTH MODEL JCIGM) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Prepared for: The Collier County Board of County Commissioners And The Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department By: Van Buskirk, Ryffel and Associates, Inc. 100 Estero Boulevard, Suite 434 Fort Myers Beach, Florida 33931 Phone: (239) 463-3929 Fax: (239) 463-5050 Webpage and Email: www.interactivegrowthmodel.com September 29, 2008 ©Copyright 2008 by Van Buskirk, Ryffel and Associates, Inc.,all rights reserved. Reprint permission must be requested in writing from Van Buskirk, Ryffel and Associates, Inc. Interactive Growth Model'P' is a registered trademark. 57 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Section 5 Population Distribution to Build-out Table 4 Study Area Population Forecast 2007-Build-out* Ycur Population 2007 79568 2010 89910 2015 117916 2020 153631 2025 191329 2030 230283 2035 269814 2040 308560 2045 343071 2050 371180 2055*392562* 2060 407970 2070 418623 2075 430524 2080 433628 Build-out 442537 Source: Van Buskirk,Ryffel,and Associates,Inc. *90%of Build-out In the interest of a clearer understanding,the population forecast output data shown above,was converted to visual representations that are more easily interpreted. By way of example,Maps 3 to 12 shows the population distribution and intensity in the years 2007, 2010,2020, 2030, 2040, 2050, 2060, 2070,2080, and Build-out,respectively for the entire study area. Likewise, Maps 13 to 22 show the RFMUD and GGE areas and Maps 23 to 32 show the RLSAand Immokalee areas during those same time intervals. The various degrees of green shadings on these maps represent the percentage of build-out population of each TAZ at the particular 10-year interval.This was done in 10 percent increments with greater populations shown in darker shading. 21 58 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Map 19 Population Distribution, Year 2060 Map 21 Population Distribution, Year 2080 Map 20 Population Distribution, Year 2070 CoHfer In1etaetive Grovlth Model RFMUD and GGE Year 2070 Population: 108.311 Map 22 Population Distribution, Year Build-Out Cotner .lnteract1•••.e GroVlth t,odel RFMUDand GGE Year Build-Out PoputltJon: 114,451 26 59 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) 60 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) NAME STATUS Ord. # Date App'd Est. Buildout A/C CMTY LOCATIONS/T/R TOTAL SIZE ACRESRES. MF TOTAL RES. MF DEV.MF UNITS LEFT TO DEVELOP TAZ ID-Num PELICAN BAY (DRI-77-1)ACTIVE 04-59 9/21/2004 12/31/2024 5, 12 NN 32,33-48-25 & 4,2,104.00 5,686 4,096 1,590 128/131 193 HACIENDA LAKES (DRI-11-05) ACTIVE 11-41 10/25/2011 1/17/2029 RF 11-14,23-25/50/26 2,262.14 1,232 24 1,208 355, 357-359,361, 362415 ENBROOK ACTIVE 20-06 1/14/2020 7/17/1905 RF 10-51-26 65.88 526 0 526 345 458 MARCO SHORES COUNTRY CLUB ACTIVE 16-37 9/13/1994 2004 RF 26,27,28-51 321.00 1,580 1,062 518 343/343.3 148 ARROWHEAD ACTIVE 08-36 3/22/2005 2010 IMM 31-46-29 & 6-307.30 809 332 477 418.1 7 IMPERIAL LAKES ACTIVE 82-81 9/14/1982 n/a NN 15-48-25 78.20 430 0 430 90 114 MINI TRIANGLE ACTIVE 18-25 5/8/2018 2023 EN 11-50-25 5.35 377 0 377 270 451 SHADOW WOOD ACTIVE 08-43 7/13/1982 tbd SN 16-50-26 168.10 558 194 364 246 236 PINE RIDGE COMMONS ACTIVE 99-94 12/14/1999 2004 12 NN 10-49-25 31.00 325 0 325 117 199 ALLURA ACTIVE 19-22 9/24/2019 2024 NN 13-48-25 35.92 304 0 304 85 457 COURTHOUSE SHADOWS/COLLIER** ACTIVE 16-45 1/28/1992 2021 16 EN 11,12,13-50 20.35 300 0 300 289 47 CREEKSIDE COMMERCE CENTER ACTIVE 16-32 10/24/2006 2026 NN 27-48-25 106.06 300 0 300 142 49 HAMMOCK PARK ACTIVE 07-30 11/28/2000 2/27/2017 RF 14-50-26 19.13 265 0 265 359 99 I-75/ALLIGATOR ALLEY** ACTIVE 07-26 2/13/2007 2023 9 GG 34-49-26 40.80 425 160 265 251 110 AUDUBON COUNTRY CLUB ACTIVE 96-69 6/25/1991 2006 NN 5,7,8,9-48-2 754.75 300 36 264 78,79,81,82,83,84 10 SHOPPES AT SANTA BARBARA ACTIVE 98-22 3/24/1998 2026 6 GG 4-50-26 18.10 242 0 242 264 238 BLUE CORAL APARTMENTS ACTIVE 21-32 9/28/2021 2026 UE 30-48-26 9.35 234 0 234 161 470 GARDEN WALK VILLAGE ACTIVE 96-4 2/13/1996 2003 IMM 11-47-29 17.06 204 0 204 411 84 RUSSELL SQUARE ACTIVE 18-51 10/23/2018 2023 SN 9-50-26 32.90 230 32 198 245 455 RCMA IMMOKALEE ACTIVE 21-38 10/26/2021 7/18/1905 IMM 31-46-29 62.22 160 0 160 473 ANTILLES ACTIVE 18-02 2/13/2018 2023 MI 15-51-26 43.77 212 68 144 343 448 ONE NAPLES ACTIVE 21-09 3/1/2021 2026 NN 32-48-25 5.42 140 0 140 137 466 NORTH PORT BAY ACTIVE 00-05 6/13/2000 2007 RF 4,9-52-28 49.96 248 116 132 354 175 IMMOKALEE FAIR HOUSING ALLIANCE INCACTIVE 20-23 9/8/2020 2015 IMM 32-46-29 9.52 128 0 128 417 462 CAMDEN LANDING ACTIVE 21-13 3/9/2021 7/18/1905 N 14-50-25 9.93 127 0 127 287.1/288.1/295/296362 REGAL ACRES ACTIVE 05-36 6/28/2005 2023 RF 12-51-26 59.90 300 184 116 357 353 MAGNOLIA POND ACTIVE 10-06 6/9/1998 2/23/2020 GG 34-49-26 47.05 106 0 106 252 145 IMMOKALEE SENIOR HOUSING ACTIVE 04/29 5/11/2004 5/11/2012 IMM 33-46-29 7.44 119 30 89 435 338 BRIARWOOD ACTIVE 95-33 4/25/1995 2005 CN 31-49-26 209.17 525 455 70 259 20 BERKSHIRE LAKES (DRI-82-1) ACTIVE 15-66 1/13/1998 2003 6 GG 5-50-26 & 32, 1,093.90 2,944 2,904 40 257 15 MERCATO ACTIVE 06-32 11/15/2005 2010 5 NN 34-48-25 53.00 175 137 38 144 358 BOYNE SOUTH ACTIVE 04-60 9/21/2004 2010 RF 20-51-27 242.35 34 0 34 343.3 16 MERIDIAN VILLAGE ACTIVE 13-47 6/6/2006 2025 EN 2-50-25 11.68 31 0 31 114.1 363 MICELI ACTIVE 92-62 9/1/1992 2003 SN 29-50-26 8.70 17 0 17 312 154 ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER ACTIVE 11-30 9/13/2011 2026 RE 4/49/27 40.62 12 0 12 215 413 SALVATION ARMY ACTIVE 01-65 11/27/2001 2004 EN 1-50-25 6.51 20 10 10 272 231 THREE HUN.AC.GOODLETTE RD ACTIVE 96-80 12/10/1996 2003 NN 3,10-49-25 300.00 900 890 10 116 261 MIRALIA ACTIVE 96-12 3/26/1996 2006 NN 32-48-25 8.96 210 205 5 133 155 71,558.81 20,735 10,935 9,800 Collier County Planned Unit Developments with remaining Multi-Family Units 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Selection Criteria: 1 2 80 annual openings and positive growth 3 Mean Wage of $15.62/hour and Entry Wage of $12.71/hour 4 High Skill/High Wage (HSHW) Occupations: Mean Wage of $24.49/hour and Entry Wage of $15.62/hour Annual FLDOE In EFI Percent Annual Training Targeted Data SOC Code†HSHW††Occupational Title†Growth Openings Mean Entry Code Industry?Source††† 132011 HSHW Accountants and Auditors 1.61 390 32.65 19.44 5 Yes R 113011 HSHW Administrative Services Managers 1.55 1,537 44.46 25.26 4 Yes S 493011 HSHW Aircraft Mechanics and Service Technicians 1.67 1,474 31.54 16.75 3 Yes S 532011 HSHW Airline Pilots, Copilots, and Flight Engineers 1.44 610 113.51 69.15 4 Yes S 274011 Audio and Video Equipment Technicians 3.23 869 23.38 14.44 4 Yes S 493021 Automotive Body and Related Repairers 1.26 1,104 21.85 14.10 3 Yes S 493023 Automotive Service Technicians and Mechanics 0.66 5,668 21.81 12.68 3 Yes S 433031 Bookkeeping, Accounting, and Auditing Clerks 0.69 699 20.00 13.28 4 Yes R 472021 Brickmasons and Blockmasons 2.05 127 19.59 14.65 3 No R 493031 Bus and Truck Mechanics and Diesel Engine Specialists 1.61 88 22.76 16.86 3 Yes R 533021 Bus Drivers, Transit and Intercity 1.52 1,744 19.81 13.59 3 No S 131199 HSHW Business Operations Specialists, All Other 1.86 349 34.12 16.00 4 Yes R 535021 HSHW Captains, Mates, and Pilots of Water Vessels 2.09 742 29.34 18.11 3 Yes S 472031 Carpenters 1.88 1,068 20.15 15.03 3 Yes R 472051 Cement Masons and Concrete Finishers 2.28 229 19.95 14.30 3 Yes R 351011 HSHW Chefs and Head Cooks 3.59 184 33.60 19.04 3 Yes R 111011 HSHW Chief Executives 0.50 103 80.52 30.96 5 Yes R 131031 HSHW Claims Adjusters, Examiners, and Investigators 0.26 2,070 30.92 20.07 3 Yes S 212011 HSHW Clergy 1.34 92 25.32 15.69 5 Yes R 532012 HSHW Commercial Pilots 1.74 592 78.64 26.04 3 Yes S 211099 Community and Social Service Specialists, All Other 2.37 124 18.48 14.28 5 Yes R 131141 HSHW Compensation, Benefits, and Job Analysis Specialists 1.61 756 26.93 17.88 4 Yes S 131041 HSHW Compliance Officers 1.11 2,155 34.71 19.90 3 Yes S 151143 HSHW Computer Network Architects 1.57 979 51.96 34.03 3 Yes S 151199 HSHW Computer Occupations, All Other 1.49 1,118 37.67 17.86 3 Yes S 151131 HSHW Computer Programmers 2.17 1,169 41.69 23.31 3 Yes S 151121 HSHW Computer Systems Analysts 1.89 2,652 43.26 24.53 4 Yes S 151151 Computer User Support Specialists 2.24 171 23.14 16.17 3 Yes R 119021 HSHW Construction Managers 2.54 315 42.34 23.38 4 Yes R 131051 HSHW Cost Estimators 1.35 131 33.07 21.69 4 Yes R 151141 HSHW Database Administrators 1.52 669 45.51 27.69 4 Yes S 319091 Dental Assistants 1.57 139 20.25 15.22 3 Yes R 292021 HSHW Dental Hygienists 1.42 1,022 28.14 18.37 4 Yes S 292032 HSHW Diagnostic Medical Sonographers 2.57 522 30.43 22.17 3 Yes S 472081 Drywall and Ceiling Tile Installers 0.98 90 18.08 13.10 3 No R 472111 Electricians 1.86 379 20.80 15.23 3 Yes R 252021 HSHW Elementary School Teachers, Except Special Education 1.43 370 30.33 22.02 5 No R 292041 Emergency Medical Technicians and Paramedics 1.50 104 19.88 13.99 4 Yes R 113031 HSHW Financial Managers 2.65 140 51.52 27.61 5 Yes R 332011 HSHW Firefighters 1.08 171 27.75 18.88 3 Yes R 371012 First-Line Superv. Landscaping & Groundskeeping Workers 3.36 261 24.32 15.13 3 Yes R 471011 HSHW First-Line Superv. of Construction and Extraction Workers 2.01 721 30.55 19.88 4 Yes R 371011 First-Line Superv. of Housekeeping & Janitorial Workers 3.67 114 21.78 15.07 3 Yes R 491011 HSHW First-Line Superv. of Mechanics, Installers, and Repairers 1.72 237 28.41 17.81 3 Yes R 431011 HSHW First-Line Superv. of Office and Admin. Support Workers 0.91 679 26.71 16.88 4 Yes R 511011 HSHW First-Line Superv. of Production and Operating Workers 1.16 125 27.79 18.46 3 Yes R 331099 First-Line Superv., Protective Service Workers, All Other 2.04 662 22.72 13.88 3 Yes S 411012 HSHW First-Line Supervisors of Non-Retail Sales Workers 1.02 160 39.04 22.07 4 Yes R 391021 First-Line Supervisors of Personal Service Workers 2.53 2,046 21.96 14.13 3 Yes S 411011 First-Line Supervisors of Retail Sales Workers 0.98 888 22.93 13.91 3 Yes R 119051 HSHW Food Service Managers 2.49 216 31.83 19.94 4 Yes R 111021 HSHW General and Operations Managers 1.98 761 47.53 23.10 4 Yes R 472121 Glaziers 2.42 113 18.59 13.87 3 Yes R 271024 Graphic Designers 0.62 84 22.68 14.49 4 Yes R 292099 Health Technologists and Technicians, All Other 1.72 941 21.43 13.45 3 Yes S 499021 Heating, A.C., and Refrigeration Mechanics and Installers 1.49 397 23.92 17.31 3 Yes R 533032 Heavy and Tractor-Trailer Truck Drivers 1.36 552 19.57 13.72 3 Yes R 131071 HSHW Human Resources Specialists 2.30 174 28.41 18.81 5 Yes R 499041 Industrial Machinery Mechanics 2.05 1,698 21.93 14.95 3 Yes S 537051 Industrial Truck and Tractor Operators 1.40 3,811 18.34 12.37 3 Yes S 151122 HSHW Information Security Analysts 1.80 565 43.26 26.49 3 Yes S 413021 Insurance Sales Agents 0.85 274 26.78 14.78 3 Yes R 252012 HSHW Kindergarten Teachers, Except Special Education 1.42 84 30.25 23.80 5 No R 292061 Licensed Practical and Licensed Vocational Nurses 2.27 340 20.99 16.28 3 Yes R 434131 Loan Interviewers and Clerks 1.36 1,629 22.10 15.46 3 Yes S 132072 HSHW Loan Officers 0.85 1,690 34.72 18.08 4 Yes S 514041 Machinists 1.57 85 22.38 15.35 3 Yes R 499071 Maintenance and Repair Workers, General 2.20 689 18.23 12.95 3 Yes R 131111 HSHW Management Analysts 2.39 308 48.86 22.91 5 Yes R 119199 HSHW Managers, All Other 1.79 183 42.32 24.14 4 Yes R FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY Workforce Development Area 24 - Charlotte, Collier, Glades, Hendry, and Lee Counties 2019 Hourly Wage 2021-22 Regional Demand Occupations List Sorted by Occupational Title FLDOE Training Code 3 (PSAV Certificate), 4 (Community College Credit/Degree), or 5 (Bachelor's Degree) Source: Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, Bureau of Workforce Statistics and Economic Research (WSER) 1 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Selection Criteria: 1 2 80 annual openings and positive growth 3 Mean Wage of $15.62/hour and Entry Wage of $12.71/hour 4 High Skill/High Wage (HSHW) Occupations: Mean Wage of $24.49/hour and Entry Wage of $15.62/hour Annual FLDOE In EFI Percent Annual Training Targeted Data SOC Code†HSHW††Occupational Title†Growth Openings Mean Entry Code Industry?Source††† Workforce Development Area 24 - Charlotte, Collier, Glades, Hendry, and Lee Counties 2019 Hourly Wage 2021-22 Regional Demand Occupations List Sorted by Occupational Title FLDOE Training Code 3 (PSAV Certificate), 4 (Community College Credit/Degree), or 5 (Bachelor's Degree) 131161 Market Research Analysts and Marketing Specialists 3.08 165 24.24 14.17 5 Yes R 119111 HSHW Medical and Health Services Managers 4.34 91 53.67 28.86 5 Yes R 292010 HSHW Medical and Clinical Laboratory Technologists and Technicians 1.73 1,713 25.99 15.73 4 Yes S 319092 Medical Assistants 2.81 540 17.31 13.74 3 Yes R 499062 Medical Equipment Repairers 4.77 112 18.00 13.41 3 Yes R 292071 Medical Records and Health Information Technicians 1.80 1,267 21.43 13.45 4 Yes S 436013 Medical Secretaries 1.93 157 17.31 13.67 3 Yes R 131121 HSHW Meeting, Convention, and Event Planners 2.81 1,194 24.67 15.51 4 Yes S 252022 HSHW Middle School Teachers, Exc. Special & Voc. Education 1.42 200 30.73 23.38 5 No R 151142 HSHW Network and Computer Systems Administrators 1.48 1,754 41.57 26.59 4 Yes S 472073 Operating Engineers/Construction Equipment Operators 1.76 187 21.12 14.99 3 Yes R 472141 Painters, Construction and Maintenance 1.40 478 16.89 13.20 3 Yes R 232011 Paralegals and Legal Assistants 1.30 142 24.25 16.49 3 Yes R 132052 HSHW Personal Financial Advisors 1.30 88 57.33 20.57 5 Yes R 292052 Pharmacy Technicians 1.70 2,962 16.45 12.67 3 Yes S 319097 Phlebotomists 3.32 1,346 16.45 12.85 3 Yes S 312021 HSHW Physical Therapist Assistants 3.88 113 30.68 23.92 4 Yes R 472151 Pipelayers 1.39 559 19.38 16.19 3 Yes S 472152 Plumbers, Pipefitters, and Steamfitters 1.40 322 21.85 15.36 3 Yes R 333051 HSHW Police and Sheriff's Patrol Officers 1.06 148 26.77 20.36 3 No R 251199 HSHW Postsecondary Teachers, All Other 2.39 114 32.43 25.01 4 No R 119141 HSHW Property, Real Estate & Community Association Managers 1.79 276 30.13 18.73 4 Yes R 292053 Psychiatric Technicians 2.15 931 16.00 12.78 3 Yes S 131020 HSHW Purchasing Agents, Except Wholesale, Retail, and Farm Products 0.60 91 27.12 17.40 Yes No R 292034 HSHW Radiologic Technologists 1.57 1,112 27.45 19.60 3 Yes S 419021 Real Estate Brokers 1.87 874 29.34 13.81 3 No S 291141 HSHW Registered Nurses 1.74 761 34.52 27.29 4 Yes R 291126 HSHW Respiratory Therapists 2.62 776 28.22 23.54 4 Yes S 535011 Sailors and Marine Oilers 2.21 555 15.40 13.35 3 No S 112022 HSHW Sales Managers 1.82 87 58.58 23.70 5 Yes R 414011 HSHW Sales Representatives, Wholesale & Mfg, Tech. & Sci. Prod. 3.70 127 44.17 17.09 3 Yes R 414012 Sales Representatives, Wholesale and Manufacturing, Other 1.35 563 32.01 15.26 3 Yes R 252031 HSHW Secondary School Teachers, Exc. Special and Voc. Ed. 1.42 216 32.66 24.74 5 No R 413031 HSHW Securities and Financial Services Sales Agents 0.72 155 36.66 17.49 5 Yes R 492098 Security and Fire Alarm Systems Installers 2.20 81 22.18 15.79 3 No R 472211 Sheet Metal Workers 2.16 114 18.78 14.21 3 Yes R 211093 Social and Human Service Assistants 3.03 96 19.53 13.17 3 Yes R 151132 HSHW Software Developers, Applications 2.54 161 48.71 25.16 4 Yes R 472221 Structural Iron and Steel Workers 1.87 506 21.16 16.08 3 Yes S 211018 Substance Abuse, Behavioral Disorder, and Mental Health Counselors 4.13 111 22.36 16.55 5 No R 292055 Surgical Technologists 1.45 809 22.19 16.10 3 Yes S 492022 Telecommunications Equipment Installers and Repairers 0.38 87 24.34 16.83 3 Yes R 472044 Tile and Marble Setters 2.07 118 19.96 14.32 3 Yes R 113071 HSHW Transportation, Storage, and Distribution Managers 1.35 513 46.32 26.13 4 Yes S 292056 Veterinary Technologists and Technicians 2.59 998 18.31 13.04 4 Yes S 251194 HSHW Vocational Education Teachers, Postsecondary 1.69 658 29.91 20.20 4 Yes S 151134 HSHW Web Developers 1.68 868 34.50 20.68 3 Yes S 514121 Welders, Cutters, Solderers, and Brazers 1.21 98 22.24 13.53 3 Yes R †SOC Code and Occupational Title refer to Standard Occupational Classification codes and titles. ††HSHW = High Skill/High Wage. †††Data Source: R = Meets regional wage and openings criteria based on state Labor Market Statistics employer survey data. Regional data are shown. S = Meets statewide wage and openings criteria based on state Labor Market Statistics employer survey data. Statewide data are shown. NR = Not releasable. EFI - Enterprise Florida, Inc. Source: Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, Bureau of Workforce Statistics and Economic Research (WSER) 2 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Traffic Analysis 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 401 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 404 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 406 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 407 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 408 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 409 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 410 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 411 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 412 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 413 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 414Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 417Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 418Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 419 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 420 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 421Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 422Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 423 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 424 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 425 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 426 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) NIM SYNOPSIS 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 427 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Page 1 of 3 Memorandum To: Laura DeJohn, AICP, Collier County Zoning Division Michele Mosca, AICP, Collier County Zoning Division From: Alexis Crespo, Waldrop Engineering, P.A. Date: November 8, 2021 Subject: Carman Drive 15 RPUD (PL20210000624) Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (PL2021000623) Neighborhood Information Meeting Summary Waldrop Engineering, P.A., and Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. conducted a neighborhood informational meeting (NIM) for the Carman Drive Subdistrict Growth Management Plan Amendment and Carman Drive 15 Planned Unit Development (RPUD) rezone. The meeting was held on Monday, October 25, 2021, at 5:00 p.m. at the Fairway Bible Church, 3855 the Lords Way, Naples, FL. The sign-in sheets are attached as Exhibit “A” and demonstrate approximately 4 attendees came to the meeting, including Collier County Staff. Additionally, one (1) attendee participated via Zoom. A copy of the legal notice, affidavit of publication, a copy of the letter sent to surrounding property owners, and a list of the surrounding property owners are attached as Exhibit “D”. Alexis Crespo started the meeting by introducing the project team Waldrop Engineering, the property owner David Torres and Florida Star Development, and Rich Yovanovich with Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. She introduced Collier County staff Laura DeJohn and Michele Mosca. Exhibit boards were provided for the audience depicting Carman Drive Property location and proposed RPUD Master Plan. A handout summarizing the requested changes was distributed as Exhibit “B” and handout identifying the uses that are allowed under the current Agricultural Land Use as Exhibit “C”. She reviewed the proposed RPUD development standards inlcuding 45’ maximum zoned height and 55’ actual height. Following the presentation questions were asked by attendees and responses were provided as outlined below. Public Comment Summary: 1. Could this be up to four stories? RESPONSE: Yes. Could be up to four-stories. 2. Can give more of an explanation on how offsite preserve works. RESPONSE: Off-site mitigation will be provided with land that has more environmental value. This is not simply cutting a check to the County this is negotiated with an environmental agency whether it be the Water Management District, Army Core of Engineers or Department of Environmental Protection. The on-site preserve requirement is 0.25 acres and are committing to 25.95 acre mitigation parcel. This is exponentially more than what would be required on site. 3. Are the buffers 130’ from Sapphire Cove to this development? Is that wall to wall? 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 428 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Page 2 of 3 RESPONSE: Let me clarify that. The preserve area tract that exists within Sapphire Cove is 120’ wide. Would be about 150’ from wall to wall. 4. Steps to protect the existing eagles nest on the south east corner of Sapphire Cove. What about the new eagles nest? RESPONSE: Mr. Torres identified the current location the environmental agencies have of an active eagles nest. For development within 660 feet of an eagles nest you have to go through what is called an eagle take permit which is done through the Fish and Wildlife Service. To get this permit there is a bunch of criteria. The environmental agencies don’t automatically put restrictions on the nest , I don’t know the code but I believe it has to be used for at least 2 or 3 seasons before it gets monitored. We used a company called Passarella & Associates and they are familiar with what is happening. We are not requesting any variance to skirt around the permit obligations. The county gets involved but not to heavily on listed species this is more a federal issue and something we deal directly with the Fish and Wildlife Service on. For the county we do a Environmental Impact Statement where we discuss what is in the area. 5. Can you provide me a resource to look at the eagles nest regulations? RESPONSE: If you look under Fish and Wildlife Service website its called an eagle take permit. I think it is a section 10 permit if I am not mistaken. 6. How many stories will Watercrest and this development be? Okay with single family or townhouses but I am not okay with 3,4,5 stories. RESPONSE: Watercrest will be 4-stories, and this development will be 4-stories. 7. Is the 212 units will that be the maximum? For me that eliminates single family homes. So 212 is not physically possible? RESPONSE: Yes, 212 is the maximum. You can always do less than the maximum density. It is physically possible just not at the same size lots as Sapphire Cove. 8. Are you looking for townhomes? RESPONSE: We are looking for a number of different scenarios townhomes is one of them. 9. What is the timeframe? What about Carman Drive the road. RESPONSE: Expect to start beginning of 2024. The road has been permitted. Fine with having a commitment in the PUD by the time of Site Development Plan we will have Carman Drive completed. 10. What about the Swamp Buggy do you own that land? RESPONSE: We do not. 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 429 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Page 3 of 3 11. Emergency access is it coming from Rattlesnake or Lords Way or both? RESPONSE: I think both there is a couple of other roads coming in that area so there will be other interconnections. We under Hacienda Lakes, LLC have to build it from Rattlesnake to the Lord’s way it’s a commitment we negotiated with the County years ago. There was general discussion about other developments in the area. Contacting the project team and County staff was offered for any further questions about the surrounding developments. There were no further comments and the meeting concluded at approximately 5:50 p.m. 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 430 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 431Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 CARMAN DRIVE SUBDISTRICT GMPA CARMAN DRIVE 15 RPUD PL20210000623 & PL20210000624 Neighborhood Information Meeting Monday, October 25, 2021 5:00 p.m. PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET Project Size: 15.4+/- Acres Current Future Land Use: Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict Proposed Future Land Use: Carman Drive Subdistrict Current Zoning: Rural Agricultural (A) Proposed Zoning: Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Approved Density/Intensity/Uses: 23 single-family dwelling units (1.5 du/acre) and agricultural uses Proposed Density/Intensity/Uses: 212 dwelling units (13.8 du/acre), to include single-family, two-family, townhouses and/or multi-family dwelling types Project Requests: 1) (PL20210000623) a Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) for a site-specific Future Land Use text and map amendment to change the property from Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict to the Carman Drive Subdistrict to allow up to 212 dwelling units, of which 42 units will be affordable housing units for “Moderate Income” persons or households earning between 80% -120% of the Area Median Income (AMI). 2) (PL20210000623) PUD Rezone to the Carman Drive 15 Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) to allow for a maximum of 212 dwelling units, including single- family, two-family, townhouses, and multi-family dwelling types; allow for deviations; and include commitments relating to on-site affordable housing units consistent with the companion GMPA. 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 432 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 433Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Page 1 of 7 2.03.01 Agricultural Districts. A. Rural Agricultural District (A). The purpose and intent of the rural agricultural district (A) is to provide lands for agricultural, pastoral, and rural land uses by accommodating traditional agricultural, agricultural related activities and facilities, support facilities related to agricultural needs, and conservation uses. Uses that are generally considered compatible to agricultural uses that would not endanger or damage the agricultural, environmental, potable water, or wildlife resources of the County, are permissible as conditional uses in the A district. The A district corresponds to and implements the Agricultural/Rural land use designation on the future land use map of the Collier County GMP, and in some instances, may occur in the designated urban area. The maximum density permissible in the rural agricultural district within the urban mixed use district shall be guided, in part, by the density rating system contained in the future land use element of the GMP. The maximum density permissible or permitted in A district shall not exceed the density permissible under the density rating system. The maximum density permissible in the A district within the agricultural/rural district of the future land use element of the Collier County GMP shall be consistent with and not exceed the density permissible or permitted under the agricultural/rural district of the future land use element. 1. The following subsections identify the uses that are permissible by right and the uses that are allowable as accessory or conditional uses in the rural agricultural district (A). a. Permitted uses. 1.Single-family dwelling. 2.Agricultural activities, including, but not limited to: Crop raising; horticulture; fruit and nut production; forestry; groves; nurseries; ranching; beekeeping; poultry and egg production; milk production; livestock raising, and aquaculture for native species subject to Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission permits. i. The following permitted uses shall only be allowed on parcels 20 acres in size or greater: a) dairying; b) ranching; c) poultry and egg production; d) milk production; e) livestock raising; and f) animal breeding, raising, training, stabling or kenneling. ii. On parcels less than 20 acres in size, individual property owners are not precluded from the keeping of the following for personal use and not in association with a commercial agricultural activity provided there are no open feed lots: a) Fowl or poultry, not to exceed 25 in total number; and b) Horses and livestock (except for hogs) not to exceed two such animals for each acre. i. Notwithstanding the above, hog(s) may be kept for a 16 week period in preparation for showing and sale at the annual Collier County Fair and/or the Immokalee Livestock show. The following standards shall apply: a) One hog per child enrolled in a 4-H Youth Development Program, Collier County Fair Program or similar program is 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 434 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Page 2 of 7 permitted. In no case shall there be more than 2 hogs per acre. b) Premises shall be fenced and maintained in a clean, healthful, and sanitary condition. c) Premises or roofed structure used for the sheltering, feeding, or confinement of such animals shall be setback a minimum of 30 feet from lot lines and a minimum of 100 feet from any dwelling unit on an adjacent parcel of land. d) Hog(s) shall not be returned to the property once removed for showing and/or sale. 3.Wholesale reptile breeding and raising (non-venomous), subject to the following standards: i. Minimum 20 acre parcel size; ii. Any roofed structure used for the shelter and/or feeding of such reptiles shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any lot line. 4.Wildlife management, plant and wildlife conservancies, wildlife refuges and sanctuaries. 5.Conservation uses. 6.Oil and gas exploration subject to state drilling permits and Collier County site development plan review procedures. 7.Family care facilities, subject to section 5.05.04. 8.Communications towers up to specified height, subject to section 5.05.09. 9.Essential services, as set forth in section 2.01.03. 10.Schools, public, including "Educational plants." b. Accessory uses. 1. Uses and structures that are accessory and incidental to the uses permitted as of right in the A district. 2. Farm labor housing, subject to section 5.05.03. 3. Retail sale of fresh, unprocessed agricultural products, grown primarily on the property and subject to a review of traffic circulation, parking, and safety concerns pursuant to the submission of a site improvement plan as provided for in section 10.02.03. 4. Packinghouse or similar agricultural processing of farm products produced on the property subject to the following restrictions: i. Agricultural packing, processing or similar facilities shall be located on a major or minor arterial street, or shall have access to an arterial street by a public street that does not abut properties zoned RSF-1 thru RSF-6, RMF-6, RMF-12, RMF-16, RT, VR, MH, TTRVC and PUD or are residentially used. ii. A buffer yard of not less than 150 feet in width shall be provided along each boundary of the site which abuts any residentially zoned or used property, and shall contain an Alternative B type buffer as defined within section 4.06.00. Such buffer and buffer yard shall be in lieu of front, side, or rear yards on that portion of the lot which abuts those districts and uses identified in subsection 2.03.01 A.1.b.4.i. above. 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 435 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Page 3 of 7 iii. The facility shall emit no noxious, toxic, or corrosive dust, dirt, fumes, vapors, or gases which can cause damage to human health, to animals or vegetation, or to other forms of property beyond the lot line of the use creating the emission. iv. A site development plan shall be provided in accordance with section 10.02.03. 5. Excavation and related processing and production subject to the following criteria: i. The activity is clearly incidental to the agricultural development of the property. ii. The affected area is within a surface water management system for agricultural use as permitted by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). iii. The amount of excavated material removed from the site cannot exceed 4,000 cubic yards. Amounts in excess of 4,000 cubic yards shall require conditional use approval for earthmining, pursuant to the procedures and conditions set forth in LDC section 10.08.00 and the Administrative Code. 6. Guesthouses, subject to section 5.03.03. 7. Private boathouses and docks on lake, canal or waterway lots, subject to section 5.03.06. 8. Use of a mobile home as a temporary residence while a permanent single-family dwelling is being constructed, subject to the following: i. Receipt of a temporary use permit from the Development Services Director, pursuant to section 5.04.04, that allows for use of a mobile home while a permanent single-family dwelling is being built; ii. Assurance that the temporary use permit for the mobile home will expire at the same time of the building permit for the single-family dwelling, or upon the completion of the single-family dwelling, whichever comes first; iii. Proof that prior to the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy for the single- family dwelling, the mobile home is removed from the premises; and iv. The mobile home must be removed at the termination of the permitted period. 9. Use of a mobile home as a residence in conjunction with bona fide agricultural activities subject to the following: i. The applicant shall submit a completed application to the site development review director, or his designee, for approval of a temporary use permit to utilize a mobile home as a residence in conjunction with a bona fide commercial agricultural activity as described in subsection 2.03.01 A.1.2. Included with this application shall be a conceptual plot plan of the subject property depicting the location of the proposed mobile home; the distance of the proposed mobile home to all property lines and existing or proposed structures; and, the location, acreage breakdown, type and any intended phasing plan for the bona fide agricultural activity. ii. The receipt of any and all local, state, and federal permits required for the agricultural use and/or to place the mobile home on the subject site including, but not limited to, an agricultural clearing permit, building permit(s), ST permits, and the like. iii. The use of the mobile home shall be permitted on a temporary basis only, not to exceed the duration of the bona fide commercial agricultural activity for which the mobile home is an accessory use. The initial temporary use permit 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 436 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Page 4 of 7 may be issued for a maximum of three years, and may, upon submission of a written request accompanied by the applicable fee, be renewed annually thereafter provided that there is continuing operation of the bona fide commercial agricultural activities. iv. The applicant utilizing, for the bona fide commercial agricultural activity, a tract of land a minimum of five acres in size. Any property lying within public road rights-of-way shall not be included in the minimum acreage calculations. v. A mobile home, for which a temporary use permit in conjunction with a bona fide commercial agricultural activity is requested, shall not be located closer than 100 feet from any county highway right-of-way line, 200 feet from any state highway right-of-way, or 500 feet from any federal highway right-of-way line. 10. Recreational facilities that serve as an integral part of a residential development and have been designated, reviewed and approved on a site development plan or subdivision master plan for that development. Recreational facilities may include but are not limited to golf course, clubhouse, community center building and tennis facilities, parks, playgrounds and playfields. c. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the rural agricultural district (A), subject to the standards and procedures established in LDC section 10.08.00 and the Administrative Code. 1. Extraction or earthmining, and related processing and production not incidental to the agricultural development of the property. NOTE: "Extraction related processing and production" is not related to "Oil extraction and related processing" as defined in this Code. 2. Sawmills. 3 .Zoo, aquarium, aviary, botanical garden, or other similar uses. 4. Hunting cabins. 5. Aquaculture for nonnative or exotic species, subject to Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission permits. 6. Wholesale reptile breeding or raising (venomous) subject to the following standards; i. Minimum 20 acre parcel size. ii. Any roofed structure used for the shelter and/or feeding of such reptiles shall be located at a minimum of 100 feet away from any lot line. 7. Churches. 8. Private landing strips for general aviation, subject to any relevant state and federal regulations. 9. Cemeteries. 10. Schools, private. 11. Child care centers and adult day care centers. 12. Collection and transfer sites for resource recovery. 13. Communication towers above specified height, subject to section 5.05.09. 14. Social and fraternal organizations. 15. Veterinary clinic. 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 437 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Page 5 of 7 16. Group care facilities (category I and II); care units; nursing homes; assisted living facilities pursuant to § 429.02 F.S. and 58A-5 F.A.C.; and continuing care retirement communities pursuant to ch. 651 F.S. and ch. 69O-193 F.A.C., all subject to LDC section 5.05.04 when located within the Urban Designated Area on the Future Land Use Map to the Collier County Growth Management Plan. 17. Golf courses and/or golf driving ranges. 18. Oil and gas field development and production subject to state field development permits. 19. Sports instructional schools and camps. 20. Sporting and recreational camps. 21. Retail plant nurseries subject to the following conditions: i. Retail sales shall be limited primarily to the sale of plants, decorative products such as mulch or stone, fertilizers, pesticides, and other products and tools accessory to or required for the planting or maintenance of said plants. ii. Additionally, the sale of fresh produce is permissible at retail plant nurseries as an incidental use of the property as a retail plant nursery. iii. The sale of large power equipment such as lawn mowers, tractors, and the like shall not be permitted in association with a retail plant nursery in the rural agricultural district. 22. Asphaltic and concrete batch making plants subject to the following conditions: i. Asphaltic or concrete batch making plants may be permitted within the area designated agricultural on the future land use map of the future land use element of the growth management plan. ii. The minimum site area shall not be less than ten acres. iii. Principal access shall be from a street designated collector or higher classification. iv. Raw materials storage, plant location and general operations around the plant shall not be located or conducted within 100 feet of any exterior boundary. v. The height of raw material storage facilities shall not exceed a height of fifty (50) feet. vi. Hours of operation shall be limited to two (2) hours before sunrise to sunset. vii. The minimum setback from the principal road frontage shall be 150 feet for operational facilities and seventy-five (75) feet for supporting administrative offices and associated parking. viii. An earthen berm achieving a vertical height of eight feet or equivalent vegetative screen with eighty (80) percent opacity one (1) year after issuance of certificate of occupancy shall be constructed or created around the entire perimeter of the property. ix. The plant should not be located within the Greenline Area of Concern for the Florida State Park System as established by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP): within the Area of Critical State Concern as depicted on the Future Land Use Map GMP; within 1,000 feet of a natural reservation; or within any County, State or federal jurisdictional wetland area. 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 438 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Page 6 of 7 23. Cultural, ecological, or recreational facilities that provide opportunities for educational experience, eco-tourism or agri-tourism and their related modes of transporting participants, viewers or patrons where applicable, subject to all applicable federal, state and local permits. Tour operations, such as, but not limited to airboats, swamp buggies, horses and similar modes of transportation, shall be subject to the following criteria: i. Permits or letters of exemption from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and the South Florida Water Management District shall be presented to the planning services director prior to site development plan approval. ii. The petitioner shall post the property along the entire property line with no trespassing signs approximately every 300 yards. iii. The petitioner shall utilize only trails identified and approved on the site development plan. Any existing trails shall be utilized before the establishment of new trails. iv. Motor vehicles shall be equipped with engines which include spark arrestors and mufflers designed to reduce noise. v. The maximum size of any vehicle, the number of vehicles, and the passenger capacity of any vehicle shall be determined by the board of zoning appeals during the conditional use process. vi. Motor vehicles shall be permitted to operate during daylight hours which means, one hour after sunrise to one hour before sunset. vii. Molestation of wildlife, including feeding, shall be prohibited. viii. Vehicles shall comply with state and United States Coast Guard regulations, if applicable. ix. The board of zoning appeals shall review such a conditional use for tour operations, annually. If during the review, at an advertised public hearing, it is determined by the board of zoning appeals that the tour operation is detrimental to the environment, and no adequate corrective action has been taken by the petitioner, the board of zoning appeals may rescind the conditional use. 24. Agricultural activities on parcels less than 20 acres in size: i. animal breeding, raising, training, stabling, or kenneling. ii. dairying; iii. livestock raising; iv. milk production; v. poultry and egg production; and vi. ranching. 25. The commercial production, raising or breeding of exotic animals, other than animals typically used for agricultural purposes or production, subject to the following standards: i. Minimum 20 acre parcel size. ii. Any roofed structure used for the shelter and/or feeding of such animals shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any lot line. 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 439 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Page 7 of 7 26. Essential services, as set forth in subsection 2.01.03 G. 27. Model homes and model sales centers, subject to compliance with all other LDC requirements, to include but not limited to section 5.04.04. 28. Ancillary plants. d. Prohibited uses. 1. Owning, maintaining or operating any facility or part thereof for the following purposes is prohibited: a) Fighting or baiting any animal by the owner of such facility or any other person or entity. b) Raising any animal or animals intended to be ultimately used or used for fighting or baiting purposes. c) For purposes of this subsection, the term baiting is defined as set forth in § 828.122(2)(a), F.S., as it may be amended from time to time. Rural Agriculture Development Standards: • Minimum Lot Size: 5 acres • Minimum Lot Width: 165 feet • Maximum Building Height: 35’ • Minimum Floor Area: 550 SF • Minimum Front & Rear Yard Setback: 50’ • Minimum Side Yard Setback: 30’ 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 440 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 441 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 442 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) October 8, 2021 RE: Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA & Carman Drive 15 PUD Rezone PL20210000623 & PL20210000624 Dear Property Owner: Please be advised that Carman Drive 15, LLC has filed two concurrent applications (PL20210000623 & PL20210000624) with Collier County. These applications are seeking approval of: (1) a Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) for a site-specific amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Map to create the Carman Drive Subdistrict; and (2) a Planned Unit Development Rezone (PUDZ). The Applications will allow for the development of up 212 dwelling units on the subject property, of which 42 dwelling units will be affordable housing units priced for households earning between 81-120% of the Area Median Income. The Carman Drive 15 Property totals 15+/- acres and is generally located northeast of the Collier Boulevard/Rattlesnake Hammock Road intersection in unincorporated Collier County, Florida, approximately ¼ mile east of Collier Boulevard and immediately west of Carman Drive (see attached location map). In compliance with the Land Development Code requirements, a Neighborhood Information Meeting will be held to provide you an opportunity to hear a presentation about this application and ask questions. The Neighborhood Information Meeting will be held on Monday, October 25, 2021, at 5:00 p.m. at Fairway Bible Church, 3855 The Lords Way, Naples, FL 34113. Attending virtually is also available via Zoom. Please visit www.zoom.us, click on “Join A Meeting” in the top right corner, and enter Meeting ID: 828 168 11801 Should you have questions prior to the meeting, please contact me directly at (239) 850-8525, or alexis.crespo@waldropengineering.com. Sincerely, WALDROP ENGINEERING, P.A. Alexis V. Crespo, AICP Senior Vice President – Planning 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 443 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 444 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) HACIENDA LAKES OF NAPLES LLC 7742 ALICO RD FORT MYERS FL 33912 COLLIER RATTLESNAKE LLC 801 ANCHOR RODE DR #206 NAPLES FL 34103 CARMAN DRIVE 15 LLC 7742 ALICO RD FORT MYERS FL 33912 AMERISITE LLC 3295 FORT CHARLES DR NAPLES FL 34102 HAMMOCK PARK APARTMENTS 7742 ALICO ROAD FT MYERS FL 33912 SWAMP BUGGY INC PO BOX 10528 NAPLES FL 34101 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO 700 UNIVERSE BLVD JUNO BEACH FL 33408 COLLIER CNTY JUNIOR DEPUTIES 3200 BAILEY LN STE 199 NAPLES FL 34105 MATSON III, DUFFIELD W=& SARAH 4960 SUNSET DR MIAMI FL 33143 TRACT L DEVELOPMENT LLC 7742 ALICO ROAD FORT MYERS FL 33912 MAROLT, JACQUELINE 3706 SAPPHIRE COVE CIR NAPLES FL 34114 LOUGHERY, STEPHEN J 3710 SAPHIRE COVE CIR NAPLES FL 34114 LORDS WAY 30 LLC 7742 ALICO ROAD FT MYERS FL 33192 ROSONE, EVA 3671 SAPPHIRE COVE CIR NAPLES FL 34114 HACIENDA LAKES CMNTY DEV DIST 707 ORCHID DR STE 100 NAPLES FL 34102 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 445 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) FOLIO Name Address City 48586001048 HACIENDA LAKES OF NAPLES LLC 7742 ALICO RD FORT MYERS 417400002 COLLIER RATTLESNAKE LLC 801 ANCHOR RODE DR #206 NAPLES 417000004 CARMAN DRIVE 15 LLC 7742 ALICO RD FORT MYERS 416800001 AMERISITE LLC 3295 FORT CHARLES DR NAPLES 416720000 HAMMOCK PARK APARTMENTS 7742 ALICO ROAD FT MYERS 418400807 SWAMP BUGGY INC PO BOX 10528 NAPLES 418400603 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO 700 UNIVERSE BLVD JUNO BEACH 418400409 COLLIER CNTY JUNIOR DEPUTIES 3200 BAILEY LN STE 199 NAPLES 418400001 MATSON III, DUFFIELD W=& SARAH 4960 SUNSET DR MIAMI 417760001 TRACT L DEVELOPMENT LLC 7742 ALICO ROAD FORT MYERS 31374001681 MAROLT, JACQUELINE 3706 SAPPHIRE COVE CIR NAPLES 31374001665 LOUGHERY, STEPHEN J 3710 SAPHIRE COVE CIR NAPLES 31374001649 LORDS WAY 30 LLC 7742 ALICO ROAD FT MYERS 31374000828 ROSONE, EVA 3671 SAPPHIRE COVE CIR NAPLES 31374000129 HACIENDA LAKES CMNTY DEV DIST 707 ORCHID DR STE 100 NAPLES 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 446 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) State Zip FL 33912 FL 34103 FL 33912 FL 34102 FL 33912 FL 34101 FL 33408 FL 34105 FL 33143 FL 33912 FL 34114 FL 34114 FL 33192 FL 34114 FL 34102 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 447 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) SIGN POST AFFIDAVIT & PHOTOS 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 448 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) SIGN POSTING INSTRUCTIONS (CHAPTER 8, COLLIER COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT) A zoning sign(s) must be posted by the petitioner or the petitioner’s agent on the parcel for a minimum of fifteen (15) calendar days in advance of the first public hearing and said sign(s) must be maintained by the petitioner or the petitioner’s agent through the Board of County Commissioners Hearing. Below are general guidelines for signs, however these guidelines should not be construed to supersede any requirement of the LDC. For specific sign requirements, please refer to the Administrative Code, Chapter 8 E. 1.The sign(s) must be erected in full view of the public, not more than five (5) feet from the nearest street right-of-way or easement. 2.The sign(s) must be securely affixed by nails, staples, or other means to a wood frame or to a wood panel and then fastened securely to a post, or other structure. The sign may not be affixed to a tree or other foliage. 3.The petitioner or the petitioner’s agent must maintain the sign(s) in place, and readable condition until the requested action has been heard and a final decision rendered. If the sign(s) is destroyed, lost, or rendered unreadable, the petitioner or the petitioner’s agent must replace the sign(s - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - --- - - - - -- AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED AUTHORITY, PERSONALLY APPEARED WHO ON OATH SAYS THAT HE/SHE HAS POSTED PROPER NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 10.03.00 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ON THE PARCEL COVERED IN PETITION NUMBER : SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT OR AGENT STREET OR P.O. BOX NAME (TYPED OR PRINTED) CITY, STATE ZIP # STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing instrument was sworn to and subscribed before me this day of , 20 , by , personally known to me or who produced as identification and who did/did not take an oath. Signature of Notary Public Printed Name of Notary Public My Commission Expires: (Stamp with serial number) Rev. 3/4/2015 NOTE: AFTER THE SIGN HAS BEEN POSTED, THIS AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE SHOULD BE RETURNED NO LATER THAN TEN (10) WORKING DAYS BEFORE THE FIRST HEARING DATE TO THE ASSIGNED PLANNER. Alexis Crespo Alexis Crespo PL20210000623 & PL20210000624 28100 Bonita Grande Drive, Suite 305 Bonita Springs, FL 34135 XXXXXXXXXXXX PINELLAS April 22 Alexis Crespo FL Driver's License xxxxxx Sandra K. Fabrizio March 5, 2023 21nd 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 449 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 450 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) Collier BlvdCollier BlvdR a t t l e s n a k e H a m m o c k R dRattlesnake H a m m o c k R d Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Subject Parcel 0 0.2 0.4 0.60.1 Miles ¯Carman Drive Subdistrict Aerial Location Map 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 451 Attachment: Application & Backup Documents_Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA)SIGN LOCATION Collier County Housing Demand Model - 2021 Housing Demand Methodology Approved by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners 2/27/2018 (Item 11A) Methodology: Goal of Reducing Housing Cost Burden 1%/Year + Accommodate Yearly Population Growth - Existing Supply = Units Needed Yearly by Income Level 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Unit Type Income Target Household Income Level (% of Median Income) Max Household Income (3-Person household) Max Rent or Purchase Price (mortgage) (HUD 2021) Existing Home Inventory (April 2021) Existing Approved Units (April 2021) Schimberg Cost Burdened Households (2021 Est.) New Units Needed in Order to Lower Cost Burdened by 1% (Yearly) New Units Needed for 2021 Population Growth (in households) Total New Affordable Units Needed Per Year (1% reduction in Cost Burden +Population Growth) Available Supply of Units for Purchase (April 2021) Available Supply of Units for Rent (April 2021) Remaining New Affordable Units Needed (yearly) Rental Extremely Low Less than 30% $ 22,800 $ 570 n/a 382 13711 343 218 561 0 25 536 Rental Very Low 31-50% $ 37,950 $ 948 n/a 743 13002 325 248 573 0 7 566 Owner or Rental Low 51-80% $ 60,750 $1519(r) / $189,000 (p) 47,034 6,667 15,954 399 388 787 115 172 500 Owner Moderate 81-120% $ 91,080 $2,277/$338,000 68,375 5,236 11,014 275 436 711 196 367 148 Owner Gap 121-140% $ 106,260 $2,657/$407,000 19,465 0 5,872 147 212 359 112 0 247 Sub Total 134,874 13,028 59,553 1,489 1,502 2,991 423 571 1997 Market Market >140% >$106,260 >$407,000 67,204 5693 142 851 993 976 n/a n/a TOTAL 202,078 65,246 1,631 2,353 3,984 1,399 571 n/a 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 452 Attachment: Collier County Housing Demand Model 2021 (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 453 Attachment: 2022 Income Limits and Rent Limits Table (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !(!( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( IMMOKALEE RD SANTA BARBARA BLVDI-75I-75LOGAN BLVDGO LDEN GATE P KWY COLLIER BLVDTAMIAMITRAILE RANDALL BLVD RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK RD COLLIER BLVD10 19 66 69 62 70 71 72 74 73 75 76 77 IMMO KALEE RD OIL WELL RD LIVINGSTON RDTAMIAMI TRL NSR 29 NDAVIS BLVDGOODLETTE RD NPINE R ID GE R D EVERGLADES BLVD NRADIO RD DESOTO BLVD NVANDERBILT BEACH RD GOLDEN GATE BLVD EVANDERBILT DR9TH ST NAIRPORT PULLING RD NCORKSCREW RDB A L D E A GL E D R N BARFIELD DR N 15TH STGREEN BLVD LAKE TRAFF ORD RD N COLLIER BLVDS BARFIELD DRS COLLI ER BLVDBONITA BEACH RD NE W MARKET RD W W MAIN ST G O ODLAND DR SE A GATE D R BLUEBILL AVE 9 7 6 8 5 4 3 2 1 61 60 59 57 56 55 51 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 2625 24 23 22 21 20 17 18 16 15 14 13 12 11 64 63 67 65 68 GIS MAPPING: BETH YANG, AICPOPERATIONS DEPT./GMDFILE: COLLIER APARTMENTS.MXDDATE: 08/2019 !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(61 60 59 5857 56 55 54 53 52 48 51 50 49 ® CR 846 LAKE TRAFFORD RD SR29NIMMOKALEERDMAIN ST SR 29 N E W M A R K E T R D LAKETRAFFORD §¨¦75 §¨¦75 §¨¦75 £¤41 £¤41 £¤41 £¤41 0 2 4 61Miles (Data Source: Best available data from Growth Management Department & Public Services Department as of 08/19) C O L L I E R C O U N T Y R E N T A L A P A R T M E N T I N V E N T O R YCOLLIER C O U N T Y R E N T A L A P A R T M E N T I N V E N T O R Y GULFOFMEXI COIMMOKALEE INSET MAP LEE COUNTY LINE LEGEND COLLIER COUNTY EXISTING/BUILT RENTAL APARTMENT!(COLLIER COUNTY RENTAL APARTMENT IN PROCESS!( M ap ID N ame Addre s s City Units1Bear Cre e k 2367 Bear Cre e k Dr Naple s 1202Belvedere260 Qua il Fore st Blvd Naple s 1623Berkshire Re serve 3536 Winifre dRow Ln Naple s 1464Bermuda Island 3320 Bermuda Isle Cir Naple s 3605Brittany Ba y I & II 14815 Triangle Bay Dr Naple s 3926Bryn Mawr 7701 Da vis Blvd Naple s 2407College P a rk 6450 Colle ge pa rk cir Naple s 2108Coral P a lms 4539 Cora l P la ms Ln Naple s 2889Goodlette Arms 950 Goodle tte -Fra nk Rd N Naple s 25010Heritage -Me rSoleil 4250 Je ffe rson Ln Naple s 32011Heron P a rk - P oint a t Na ple s 2155 Gre a t Blue Dr Naple s 24812Ibis Club 8210 Ibis c lub Dr Naple s 13413Jasmine Ca y 100 Ja smine Cir Naple s 7214La Costa 3105 La Costa Cir Naple s 27615Laguna Bay 2602 Fountain Vie w cir Naple s 36316Malibu Lake s 2115 Ma libu La ke s c ir Naple s 35617Meadow Lakes 6472 Radio Rd Naple s 25218Naples 701 3531 P lanta tion Way Naple s 18819Naples P la c e I-III 4544 Sunse t Rd Naple s 16020Noah's la nding 10555 Noa hs Cir Naple s 26421Northgate Club 4300 Atoll CT Naple s 12022Oasis -Arbor Wa lk 2277 Arbour Wa lk Cir Naple s 21623Ospreys landing 100 Ospre ys La nding Naple s 17624Meadow Brook P rese rve - Turtle Creek 1130 Turtle Cre e k Blvd Naple s 26825River Reac h 2000 Rive r Re a c h Dr Naple s 55626Sabal Ke y 1600 Wellsley Cir Naple s 20027Saddlebrook Village 8685 Sa ddle brook Cir Naple s 14028San marino-Aventine 9300 Ma rino Cir Naple s 35029Shadowood P a rk 6475 Se a Wolf Ct Naple s 9630Somerset P alms - Arbor Vie w 15995 Arbor Vie w Blvd Naple s 16831Summer La ke s I 5520 Jonquil Ln Naple s 14032Summer La ke s II 5600 Jonquil Cir Naple s 27633Summer Wind-Arium Gulfshore 5301 Summe rwind Dr Naple s 36834Tuscan Isle 8680 Weir Dr Naple s 29835Villas of Capri 7725 Ta ra Cir Naple s 23536Waverley P la c e 5300 He mingway Ln Naple s 30037Whistler's Cove 11400 Whistle rs Cove Blvd Naple s 24038Whlstler's Green 4700 Whistle rs Gre e n Cir Naple s 16839Windsong Club 11086 Windsong Cir Naple s 12040Aster Lely Resort 8120 Ac a c ia ST Naple s 30841Sierra Gra nde 6975 Sie rra Club c ir Naple s 27042Collier Housing Alternative s 4211 Thoma sson Dr Naple s 1043George Wa shington Ca rve r Apt 350 10th St N Naple s 17644Housing Alternatives Of Sw Florida 3401 21st Ave Sw Naple s 1245Leawood Lakes 474 Le a swood Cir Naple s 4246Orchild Run 10991 Lost La ke Dr Naple s 28247Gorden Rive r 1400 5th Ave N Naple s 9648Crestview P a rk 2903 La ke Tra fford Rd Immoka lee 20849Crestview P a rk II 715 Cre stvie w Dr Immoka lee 9650Cypress Run 550 Hope Cir Immoka lee 4051Eden Gardens II 1375 Boxwood Dr Immoka lee 4152Farm Worker Villa ge 1800 Fa rm Worke r Wa y Immoka lee 36553Garden Lake Apts 1022 Garde n La ke Cir Immoka lee 6654Heritage Villas Of Immoka le e Ltd 1109 Hickoc k Ln Immoka lee 4155Immokalee Apts 601 W De la ware Ave Immoka lee 10056Oakhaven580 Oa kha ve n Circ le Immoka lee 16057Sanders P ines 2449 Sa nde rs P ine s Cir Immoka lee 4058So Villas Immoka le e 1802 Custe r Ave Immoka lee 3559Summer Gle n 1012 Summe r Glen Blvd Immoka lee 4660Timber Ridge of Immokale e 2711 Wilton Ct Immoka lee 3461Willowbrook P la c e 1836 Ash Ln Immoka lee 4262Inspira at Lely Re sort 7425 Inspira Cir Naple s 30463Milano Lake s 3713 Milano La ke s Cir Naple s 296TOTAL12,346 COLLIER COUN TY EXISTIN G/B UILT R EN TAL APAR TM EN T M ap ID N ame Parce l#City Units64Springs at Sa bal Bay 71750000402 Naple s 34065Ave Maria Apartment 227004009 Naple s 25066Briarwood Apartme nt 24767504003 Naple s 32067Legacy Na ples New Hope Ministrie s 399760006 Naple s 30468Addison P lace & Addison P la ce Expa nsion 188360002 Naple s 29469Pine Ridge Commons 240280606 Naple s 37570I-75/Alligator Alley P UD 21968000121 Naple s 42571Courthouse Shadows P UD 28750000523 Naple s 30072Livingston Rd/GG P a rkway Reside ntial Subdistrict 38100120001 Naple s 38273Allura RP UD 150280000 Naple s 30474Hammock P a rk 416720000 Naple s 26575Vanderbilt Commons 79271800044 Naple s 5276Alligator Alley Apa rtments a t Na ples 21968001120 Naple s 32077Pelican Apartme nts 192360001 Naple s 400TOTAL4,331 COLLIER COUN TY RENTAL APAR TM EN T IN PROCESS 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 454 Attachment: Collier Apartments_0819 (22036 : PL20210000623 Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA) 05/19/2022 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.3 Item Summary: PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD - An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida creating a Residential Planned Unit Development, by amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from the Rural Agricultural (A) Zoning District to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Zoning District for the project to be known as the Carman Drive 15 RPUD, to allow construction of a maximum of 212 rental dwelling units of which 42 will be affordable housing and rent restricted on property located at 8496 Rattlesnake Hammock Road, north of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and west of Carman Drive in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 15.41± acres; and by providing an effective date. (Companion to GMPA- PL20210000623) [Coordinator: Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager] Meeting Date: 05/19/2022 Prepared by: Title: – Zoning Name: Laura DeJohn 04/28/2022 1:47 PM Submitted by: Title: – Zoning Name: Mike Bosi 04/28/2022 1:47 PM Approved By: Review: Zoning Mike Bosi Zoning Director Review Completed 04/29/2022 8:36 AM Planning Commission Diane Lynch Review item Completed 04/29/2022 5:38 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 05/03/2022 11:31 AM Zoning Ray Bellows Additional Reviewer Completed 05/04/2022 3:31 PM Growth Management Department James C French GMD Deputy Dept Head Completed 05/05/2022 1:35 PM Planning Commission Ray Bellows Meeting Pending 05/19/2022 9:00 AM 9.A.3 Packet Pg. 455 PUDZ-PL2021000624 Carman Drive 15 RPUD Page 1 of 19 May 11, 2022May 3, 2022 STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION – ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: MAY 19, 2022 SUBJECT: CARMAN DRIVE 15 RPUD, PUDZ-PL20210000624 (Companion to GMPA-PL20210000623) PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: Owner: Carman Drive 15, LLC 7742 Alico Road Fort Myers, FL 33912 Agents: Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. Alexis Crespo, AICP Coleman, Yovanovich & RVI Planning + Landscape Koester, P.A. Architecture, Inc. (formerly 4001 Tamiami Trail N, Suite 300 Waldrop Engineering) Naples, FL 34103 28100 Bonita Grande Drive, Ste 305 Bonita Springs, FL 34135 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission consider an application to rezone +15.41 acres from the Rural Agricultural (A) Zoning District to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Zoning District for the project to be known as the Carman Drive 15 RPUD to allow construction of a maximum of 212 rental dwelling units, of which 42 will be affordable housing and rent restricted. A Future Land Use Map change is requested in the companion Growth Management Plan Amendment PL20210000623. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is +15.41 acres located approximately 0.10 miles north of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and 0.25 miles east of Collier Boulevard, on the west side of Carman Drive, in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (See location map on following page) 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 456 Attachment: Carman Dr PUDZ Staff Report - CAO reviewed (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) PUDZ-PL2021000624 Carman Drive 15 RPUD Page 2 of 19 May 11, 2022May 3, 2022 9.A.3.aPacket Pg. 457Attachment: Carman Dr PUDZ Staff Report - CAO reviewed (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 PUDZ-PL2021000624 Carman Drive 15 RPUD Page 3 of 19 May 11, 2022May 3, 2022 PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The request is for rezoning +15.41 acres of currently undeveloped property zoned Rural Agricultural (A) to the Carman Drive 15 RPUD to allow for up to 212 dwelling units. The proposed density is 13.8 dwelling units per acre (DU/AC). The site is located in an emerging area of development, on the east side of the Rattlesnake Hammock Road / C.R. 951 Activity Center (Activity Center #7) boundary. The existing Sapphire Cove single family neighborhood is to the north (approved density of 2.5 DU/AC). McMullen PUD remains undeveloped to the south (approved for 185,000 s.f. commercial uses with conversion factor for development of care units). Florida Sports Park and Junior Deputy property within Hacienda Lakes Mixed Planned Unit Development/Development of Regional Impact is to the east (approved density of 0.8 DU/AC). Carman Drive 15 RPUD is proposed to allow the following variety of housing types (s ee PUD Exhibit A, List of Permitted Uses): single family detached, two family, townhouses, and multifamily. Recreational uses and facilities for residents and guests are also permitted, along with customary accessory uses associated with residential projects. The applicant commits to the 212 dwelling units being rental units, and 20%, or 42 units, will be for persons earning between 81%-120% of the Area Median Income. The Development Commitments (PUD Exhibit F, Development Commitments) include that this restriction will remain in place for thirty (30) years from the date of issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. Rent limit adjustments will be made annually according to the most recent Collier County approved Table of Rental Rates, and the developer will report annually on the occupancy of income restricted units as part of the PUD monitoring requirements. The PUD Master Plan (PUD Exhibit C) depicts a single access point, which connects to Carman Drive, a privately maintained right-of-way. The native preservation requirement per the Land Development Code is 0.24 acres (25% of 0.96 acres of existing native vegetation). The applicant proposes satisfying the requirement off-site with a +25.95-acre Off Site Mitigation Parcel (see PUD Exhibit F, Development Commitments #3). Buffering is proposed to be consistent with the Land Development Code, with an enhanced buffer (20-foot wide Type C buffer) along Carman Drive to be compatible with other buffers provided on neighboring properties that face the Florida Sports Park along Carman Drive. A Developer Commitment is included in PUD Exhibit F consistent with other residential PUDs in the vicinity, requiring a disclosure statement to potential residents about noise associated with Florida Sports Park. Development standards are outlined in PUD Exhibit B; see staff analysis on the following pages for additional review of these standards. Maximum actual height is 55 feet for multifamily, with a restriction that buildings in the residential development tract abutting the northern property line (adjacent to Sapphire Cove) are limited to actual height of 40 feet and 2 stories. Two deviations are requested to: (1) modify buffers between residential units and amenity centers, and (2) allow an increase in the maximum fence/wall/berm height along Carman Drive from 6 feet to 10 feet. 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 458 Attachment: Carman Dr PUDZ Staff Report - CAO reviewed (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) PUDZ-PL2021000624 Carman Drive 15 RPUD Page 4 of 19 May 11, 2022May 3, 2022 SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: This section of the staff report identifies the land uses, zoning classifications, and maximum approved densities for properties surrounding the subject site. The subject site is undeveloped with a zoning designation of Rural Agricultural (A), with standard density of 1 unit per 5 acres (0.2 DU/AC). North: Sapphire Cove single-family residential development with a zoning designation of The Lord’s Way 30 Acre RPUD (approved density of 2.5 DU/AC). East: Across Carman Drive is the Florida Sports Park and Junior Deputy property with a zoning designation of Hacienda Lakes DRI/MPUD (approved density of 0.8 DU/AC). South: Undeveloped site with zoning designation of McMullen MPUD, approved for 185,000 s.f. commercial uses with conversion factor for development of care units. This is within Activity Center #7. West: Immediately west of the property is an FPL substation, beyond which is a 170- foot wide FPL easement, and the undeveloped Good Turn Center MPUD approved for 100,000 s.f. of commercial use and 200 care units, and the pending AmeriSite CB MPUD (PL20210001103) proposed for 150,000 s.f. of nonresidential use and 303 dwelling units at 16 DU/AC. These MPUDs are within Activity Center #7. Hacienda Lakes MPUD /DRI – North Area RPUD Hacienda Lakes MPUD/DRI - Swamp Buggy Attraction Junior Deputy Tract MPUD Esplanade McMullen MPUD Subject Site 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 459 Attachment: Carman Dr PUDZ Staff Report - CAO reviewed (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) PUDZ-PL2021000624 Carman Drive 15 RPUD Page 5 of 19 May 11, 2022May 3, 2022 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject +15.41-acre site is designated Urban, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict (URF) on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan (GMP); and, zoned A – Rural Agricultural District. The URF allows the following: Eligible base density: 1.5 dwelling units per acre = 23 dwelling units Maximum density: 2.5 dwelling units per acre = 38.5 dwelling units with the acquisition and redemption of Transfer of Development Rights Credits The applicant is requesting approval of up to 212 rental dwelling units (13.8 DU/AC) of which 42 units will be affordable housing and rent restricted. Additionally, the applicant is proposing to redeem 15 TDR Credits to increase density to the eligible maximum density of 2.5 DU/AC on the site. The proposed density above 2.5 DU/A is inconsistent with the GMP. There is a companion Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) petition, PL20210000623, that provides for the requested density. Therefore, the RPUD may only be found consistent with the GMP if the GMPA is approved and becomes effective. Transportation Element: In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicant’s May 4, 2021, Traffic Impact Statement for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) using the then applicable 2020 Annual Update and Inventory Reports (AUIR) and the current 2021 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. 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 460 Attachment: Carman Dr PUDZ Staff Report - CAO reviewed (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) PUDZ-PL2021000624 Carman Drive 15 RPUD Page 6 of 19 May 11, 2022May 3, 2022 Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project’s significant impacts on all roadways.” Staff finding: According to the TIS provided with this petition the proposed 212 residential dwelling unit development will generate a projected total of +/- 209 PM peak hour, 2-way trips on the adjacent roadway segment of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard. The trips generated by this development will occur on the following adjacent roadway network links using the both the 2020 and current 2021 AUIR: Roadway/Link # Link 2020 AUIR LOS 2021 AUIR LOS Current Peak Hour Peak Direction Volume/Peak Direction Projected P.M Peak Hour/Peak Direction Project Traffic (1) 2020 Remaining Capacity 2021 Remaining Capacity Collier Boulevard/34.0 Davis Blvd. to Rattlesnake Hammock. D D 3,000/North 27/NB 429 (2) 417 (2) Rattlesnake Hammock/75.0 Collier Boulevard to Santa Barbara B B 2,900/West 23/WB 1,988 1,949 1. Source for P.M. Peak Hour/Peak Direction Project Traffic is May 4, 2021; Traffic Impact Statement provided by the petitioner. 2. Projected deficiency in 2030 for this segment are due to background traffic from trip bank not caused by this development. Planned improvements on this segment in the 5 -year work program are the funded design-build I-75 interchange and the six-lane expansion from the Golden Gate Main Canal to Green Boulevard. Based on the TIS provided by the applicant, the 2020 AUIR and the currently adopted 2021 AUIR, 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 GMP. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental review staff has found this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME). The project site consists of 0.96 acres of native vegetation. A minimum of 0.24 acres (25%) of preservation is required, and the applicant proposes to satisfy this through preservation of a 25.95+/- acre off-site mitigation parcel. GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions, such as this proposed rezoning. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. Staff finds the subject petition may only be found consistent with the GMP if the companion GMPA is approved and becomes effective. STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this petition, including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in LDC Section 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 461 Attachment: Carman Dr PUDZ Staff Report - CAO reviewed (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) PUDZ-PL2021000624 Carman Drive 15 RPUD Page 7 of 19 May 11, 2022May 3, 2022 10.02.13.B.5, Planning Commission Recommendation (referred to as the “PUD Findings”), and Section 10.02.08.F, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as “Rezone Findings”), which establish the legal basis to support the CCPC’s recommendation. Drainage: The applicant provided the stormwater master plan below. Evaluation of stormwater management systems, calculations, and design criteria occur at the time of site development plan (SDP) and/or platting (PPL). Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the PUDZ petition to address environmental concerns. The property was illegally cleared by the previous landowner in 2017. To satisfy both state and federal mitigation requirements the applicant will preserve and enhance 25.95 acres off-site. The PUD preserve requirement is 0.24 acres (25% of 0.96 acres); the preservation will be met by the 25.95-acre land donation, utilizing the off-site mitigation alternative in accordance with LDC Section 3.05.07 H.1.f.vi. No listed animal species were observed on the property; however, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) wildlife data indicate the presence of Black Bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) in the area. A black bear management plan will need to be included at PPL or SDP review. The Environmental Data indicates the subject property falls within the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Primary Florida Panther Habitat (Felis concolor coryi). Telemetry data indicates that two panthers have been recorded on-site (2013 and 2015); consultation with FWS may be required. Additionally, the property boundary intersects with an active bald eagle’s nest buffer, which will require a bald eagle management plan as part of the review for the site development plan and/or plat. This project does require Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, as this project did meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 462 Attachment: Carman Dr PUDZ Staff Report - CAO reviewed (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) PUDZ-PL2021000624 Carman Drive 15 RPUD Page 8 of 19 May 11, 2022May 3, 2022 County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. Specifically, the project is within the 660-foot bald eagle nest protection zone. Environmental Services staff recommends approval of the petition. Transportation Review: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition for compliance with the GMP and the LDC and recommends approval. Landscape Review: The landscape buffers depicted on the Master Plan meet or exceed the LDC requirements, and staff finds the deviation request for modified buffers between residential units and amenity centers acceptable. School District: At the time of SDP or platting, the project will be evaluated for school concurrency. Emergency Management: Emergency Management Division staff reviewed the request and advised that the property is in a Category 3 storm surge zone. No storm surge is expected for any category storm surge less than a Category 3. The site is in a D Evacuation Zone. Zoning Services Review: Zoning Division staff has evaluated the proposed uses relative to intensity and compatibility. The proposed residential uses (single family, two family, townhouse, and multifamily) are generally consistent with the surrounding context, and protections are included the Development Commitments to disclose the potential for incompatibility due to noise generated by the adjoining Florida Sports Park. The proposed density of 13.8 DU/AC is higher than the densities approved on the abutting properties with exception of the Hammock Park MPUD, as displayed below. Name (PUD) Total Acres Number of dwellings Density (DU/AC) Carman Drive 15 (subject site) 15.41 212 (proposed) 13.8 (proposed) The Lord's Way 30 Acre RPUD (aka Sapphire Cove) 30 75 2.5 McMullen MPUD 19.32 n/a n/a Hammock Park MPUD1 20.23 265 13.85 Good Turn Center MPUD1 9.5 n/a n/a AmeriSite CB MPUD1 (Pending PL20210001103) 18.95 303 (proposed) 16.0 (proposed) Collier Boulevard Lord's Way MPUD (Pending PL20200000114) 69 296 (690 proposed, with 76 units affordable) 4.3 (10.0 proposed) Hacienda Lakes MPUD 2,262.1 1,760 0.8 1Located in Activity Center #7 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 463 Attachment: Carman Dr PUDZ Staff Report - CAO reviewed (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) PUDZ-PL2021000624 Carman Drive 15 RPUD Page 9 of 19 May 11, 2022May 3, 2022 There is a companion Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) petition, PL20210000623, that provides for the requested density. Therefore, the RPUD may only be found consistent with the GMP if the GMPA is approved and becomes effective. The proposed development standards were also reviewed in comparison with those in the surrounding area and with conventional LDC standards for cluster housing, townhouse development, and multifamily districts, as displayed below. Proposed minimum lot areas, front yards, and rear yards are less than those of the nearby communities. Proposed minimum lot widths, side yards, and maximum building heights generally align with those established nearby. Single Family Detached Two Family Townhouse or Single Family Attached Multi Family Minimum Lot Area Carman Drive 15 3,600 s.f. 2,430 s.f. 1,620 s.f. 10,000 s.f. Hacienda Lakes 4,800 s.f. 3,500 s.f. 1,800 s.f. 43,560 s.f. The Lord’s Way 30 Acre (aka Sapphire Cove) 4,800 s.f. 4,000 s.f. 1,800 s.f. 10,000 s.f. LDC Standard 3,000 s.f. Cluster Housing (Sec. 4.02.04) n/a 2,500 s.f. Townhouse (Sec. 5.05.07) 43,560 s.f. RFM-12 & RFM-16 (Sec. 4.02.01) Minimum Lot Width Carman Drive 15 40 feet 27 feet 18 feet 100 feet Hacienda Lakes 40 feet 35 feet 18 feet 150 feet The Lord’s Way 30 Acre (aka Sapphire Cove) 40 feet 40 feet 30 feet N/A LDC Standard 40 feet Cluster Housing (Sec. 4.02.04) n/a 30 feet Townhouse (Sec. 5.05.07) 150 feet RFM-12 & RFM-16 (Sec. 4.02.01) Front Yard Carman Drive 15 15 feet, or 23 feet for front loading garages & 10 feet for side loading garages 15 feet, or 23 feet for front loading garages & 10 feet for side loading garages 15 feet, or 23 feet for front loading garages & 10 feet for side loading garages 15 feet, or 10 feet from parking stall Hacienda Lakes 20 feet, or 15 feet with side loaded garage 20 feet, or 15 feet with side loaded garage 20 feet The greater of 20 feet or ½ building height The Lord’s Way 30 Acre (aka Sapphire Cove) 20 feet, or 23 feet for front loading garages 20 feet, or 23 feet for front loading garages 23 feet 23 feet LDC Standard 20 feet for front garage; 10 feet for side garage; 25 feet if no garage Cluster Housing (Sec. 4.02.04) n/a 20 feet for front garage; 10 feet for side garage Townhouse (Sec. 5.05.07) 30 feet, or ½ the building height RFM-12 & RFM-16 (Sec. 4.02.01) Side Yard Carman Drive 15 5 feet 0 / 5 feet 0 / 5 feet 10 feet Hacienda Lakes 5 feet 0 / 6 feet 0 / 6 feet ½ the building height The Lord’s Way 30 Acre (aka Sapphire Cove) 5 feet 0 / 5 feet 0 / 15 feet 0 / 15 feet LDC Standard 5 feet Cluster Housing (Sec. 4.02.04) n/a 0 / greater of 10 feet or ½ the sum of walls facing one The greater of 15 feet or ½ the building height 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 464 Attachment: Carman Dr PUDZ Staff Report - CAO reviewed (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) PUDZ-PL2021000624 Carman Drive 15 RPUD Page 10 of 19 May 11, 2022May 3, 2022 Single Family Detached Two Family Townhouse or Single Family Attached Multi Family another Townhouse (Sec. 5.05.07) RFM-12 & RFM-16 (Sec. 4.02.01) Rear Yard (Principal) Carman Drive 15 7.5 feet 7.5 feet 7.5 feet 10 feet Hacienda Lakes 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet The greater of 15’ or ½ the building height The Lord’s Way 30 Acre (aka Sapphire Cove) 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet LDC Standard 10 feet Cluster Housing (Sec. 4.02.04) n/a 20 feet Townhouse (Sec. 5.05.07) 30 feet, or ½ the building height RFM-12 & RFM-16 (Sec. 4.02.01) Max. Building Height (Actual & Zoned) Carman Drive 15 *Buildings in the R tract abutting the northern property line are limited to 35 feet/2 stories zoned height & 40 feet actual height 45 feet actual 40 feet zoned 45 feet actual 40 feet zoned 45 feet actual 40 feet zoned 55 feet actual 45 feet zoned Hacienda Lakes 42 feet actual 35 feet zoned 42 feet actual 35 feet zoned 50 feet actual 45 feet zoned 85 feet actual 75 feet zoned The Lord’s Way 30 Acre (aka Sapphire Cove) 42 feet actual 35 feet/2 stories zoned 42 feet actual 35 feet/2 stories zoned 57 feet actual 50 feet/4 stories zoned 57 feet actual 50 feet/4 stories zoned LDC Standard 35 feet zoned RSF districts (Sec. 4.02.01) n/a 50 feet zoned 75 feet zoned RFM-12 & RFM-16 (Sec. 4.02.01) 50 feet zoned 75 feet zoned RFM-12 & RFM-16 (Sec. 4.02.01) PUD FINDINGS: LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5 states that, “In support of its recommendation, the CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan’s compliance with the following criteria in addition to the findings in LDC Section 10.02.08.” (Zoning Division staff responses in non-bold). 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. Zoning Division staff has reviewed the proposed RPUD request and finds that the +15.4 acre project, which proposes 212 dwelling units, of which 42 are proposed by the applicant to be designated as affordable housing for persons earning between 81%-120% of the Area Median Income, introduces another variety of housing options in the vicinity of Activity 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 465 Attachment: Carman Dr PUDZ Staff Report - CAO reviewed (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) PUDZ-PL2021000624 Carman Drive 15 RPUD Page 11 of 19 May 11, 2022May 3, 2022 Center #7, which is intended for concentrated commercial and mixed-use development due to access to the arterial roadway network and available public services. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Documents submitted with the application were reviewed by the County Attorney’s Office and demonstrate unified control. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP. There is a companion Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) petition, PL20210000623, that provides for the requested density. Therefore, the RPUD may only be found consistent with the GMP if the GMPA is approved and becomes effective. 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. Conditions are included in the RPUD to address compatibility, including buffers that are depicted on the Master Plan, request for deviation to allow an increase in the maximum fence/wall/berm height along Carman Drive from 6 feet to 10 feet facing the Florida Sports Park and Junior Deputies property, and height limitation on the Residential tract abutting the northern property line limited to zoned height of 35 feet/2 stories and actual height of 40 feet. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The standard requirement of at least 60 percent of the gross area devoted to usable open space applies to this RPUD. The Master Plan depicts a proposed lake at the west property line of the parcel. Permitted accessory uses for the proposed development include passive open space uses and structures, including, but not limited to landscaped areas, gazebos, park benches, and walking trails. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. Transportation Planning staff finds this petition consistent with the GMP. Operational impacts will be addressed at time of first development order (SDP or Plat), at which time a new TIS will be required to demonstrate turning movements for all site access points. The project development must comply with all applicable concurrency 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 466 Attachment: Carman Dr PUDZ Staff Report - CAO reviewed (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) PUDZ-PL2021000624 Carman Drive 15 RPUD Page 12 of 19 May 11, 2022May 3, 2022 management regulations when development approvals are sought, including but not limited to any plats and or site development plans. Utilities facilities are address in the RPUD Exhibit F, Development Commitments, providing that at the time of application for subdivision Plans and Plat (PPL) and/or Site Development Plan (SDP) approval, offsite improvements and/or upgrades to the wastewater collection/transmission system may be required to adequately handle the tot al estimated peak hour flow from the project. Whether or not such improvements are necessary, and if so, the exact nature of such improvements and/or upgrades shall be determined during PPL or SDP review. Such improvement and/or upgrades as may be necessary shall be permitted and installed at the developer's expense and may be required to be in place prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any portion or phase of the development that triggers the need for such improvements and/or upgrades. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The RPUD is proposed to accommodate 212 dwelling units at a density of 13.8 DU/AC in the growing northeast quadrant of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and CR 951. There is a companion Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) petition, PL20210000623, that provides for the requested density. Therefore, the RPUD may only be found consistent with the GMP if the GMPA is approved and becomes effective. 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. The applicant is requesting two deviations from the Land Development Code (LDC). See the deviations section of the staff report beginning on page 17. REZONE FINDINGS: LDC Subsection 10.02.08 F. states, “When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners…shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable.” 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, & policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the GMP. There is a companion Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) petition, PL20210000623, that provides for the requested density. Therefore, the RPUD may only be found consistent with the GMP if the GMPA is approved and becomes effective. 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 467 Attachment: Carman Dr PUDZ Staff Report - CAO reviewed (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) PUDZ-PL2021000624 Carman Drive 15 RPUD Page 13 of 19 May 11, 2022May 3, 2022 2. The existing land use pattern. The proposed RPUD is located in the Urban Residential Fringe portion of the County which is meant to provide transitional densities between the Urban Designated Area and the Agricultural/Rural Area. Due to proximity to Collier Boulevard, a six-lane arterial roadway, and Rattlesnake Hammock Road, this area has been growing more consistent with urban levels of development. The property is along the northeast boundary of Activity Center #7, which is intended for concentrated commercial and mixed-use development. Activity Center #7 encompasses 209+/- acres at the intersection of CR 951 and Rattlesnake Hammock Road and includes a diverse and intensive mix of approved PUDs and MPUDs, which allow for multi-family, commercial, and assisted living facility uses. The Applicant is proposing density of 13.8 DU/AC on the subject property, which is significantly higher than surrounding properties to the north and east. Properties to the south and west are within the Activity Center #7, where a mix of development is proposed consistent with levels allowable in the Activity Center. The subject site is suited to be a transition between the Activity Center (high intensity) and the surrounding properties to the north and east (low intensity). The proposed density of 13.8 DU/AC is over five times that of Sapphire Cove, over 17 times that of Hacienda Lakes, and over 30% greater than the proposed density at the Collier Boulevard Lord’s Way MPUD. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The properties to the north, south, east and west of the subject property are zoned PUD and allow for residential or group care uses. The proposed location for the RPUD will not create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The RPUD boundary and surrounding district boundaries are logically drawn, following property boundaries. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The proposed change is not specifically necessary but is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such changes. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. Development of a property that has been cleared and underutilized should result in an acceptable influence on the neighborhood. 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 468 Attachment: Carman Dr PUDZ Staff Report - CAO reviewed (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) PUDZ-PL2021000624 Carman Drive 15 RPUD Page 14 of 19 May 11, 2022May 3, 2022 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. Transportation Planning staff finds this petition consistent with the GMP. Operational impacts will be addressed at time of first development order (SDP or Plat). Additionally, the project’s development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. Stormwater best management practices, treatment, and storage for this project will be addressed through Environmental Resource Permitting (ERP) with the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). County staff will evaluate the stormwater management system and design criteria at the time of SDP or PPL. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. It is not anticipated that this RPUD will seriously reduce light or air to the adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. Property values are affected by many factors. Values are driven by market conditions and are generally based on subjective determinations. Rezoning from Rural Agricultural zoning to Residential Planned Unit Development typically has a positive effect on valuation. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. The surrounding properties are a mix of undeveloped mixed use, existing single family residential, and a sports park. The approval of the rezone request from A to RPUD is not likely to deter development activity of surrounding property. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare. The proposed RPUD is subject to adoption of the companion request for a GMP Amendment (PL20210000623). If the GMP Amendment is approved, then the change would be in alignment with a legislative decision to allow the proposed levels and type of development on the property. Evaluation of decisions regarding land use and zoning include consideration of public welfare as part of the review criteria, therefore the change would not be a grant of special privilege in contrast to the public welfare. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 469 Attachment: Carman Dr PUDZ Staff Report - CAO reviewed (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) PUDZ-PL2021000624 Carman Drive 15 RPUD Page 15 of 19 May 11, 2022May 3, 2022 There are no substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with the Rural Agricultural (A) zoning. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County. It is staff’s opinion that the density level and affordability provisions proposed for the Carman Drive 15 RPUD are out of scale with the needs of the community. The subject parcel is located in the Urban Residential Fringe future land use designation which allows density levels up to 2.5 DU/AC when the public benefit of transfer of development rights (TDRs) are used. The Applicant is proposing density of 13.8 DU/AC on the subject property, which is significantly higher than contemplated by the Growth Management Plan, and significantly higher than surrounding properties to the north and east. Properties to the south and west are within the Activity Center #7, where a mix of development is proposed consistent with levels allowable in the Activity Center. The subject site is suited to be a transition between the Activity Center (high intensity) and the surrounding properties to the north and east (low intensity). Immediately to the north of the subject property is the Lords Way 30 Acre RPUD, a single family development (Sapphire Cove) that was approved at a density of 2.5 DU/A. North of Sapphire Cove is designated Business Park within the Hacienda Lakes MPUD, as well as a multi-family apartment development within the First Assembly Ministries Education and Rehabilitation Campus PUD (pending proposed change to Collier Boulevard Lord’s Way MPUD) approved with density of 4.3 DU/AC and pending proposed density of 10.0 DU/AC. The Hacienda Lakes DRI/MPUD to the east includes an Attraction Tract across Carman Drive from the subject property allowing a variety of amusement and recreational uses; the overall density allowed within Hacienda Lakes DRI/MPUD is 0.8 DU/AC. The proposed density of 13.8 DU/AC is over five times than the allowable density afforded in the GMP for this site, over five times that of Sapphire Cove, over 17 times that of Hacienda Lakes, and over 30% greater than the proposed density at the Collier Boulevard Lord’s Way MPUD. The applicant’s commitment to provide 20% of units as rentals that are affordable to moderate income households (81-120% AMI) is also out of scale with the needs of the County. Land Development Code Sec. 2.06.00 governing the Affordable Housing Density Bonus program does not recognize rental units at moderate income levels as eligible for the density bonus program because these rental rates are similar to market rate rents. As described further in the analysis associated with the companion GMPA request (PL20210000623), the 2021 Collier County Housing Demand Model identifies the needs demonstrated within the County are focused on: • rentals for extremely low, very low-, and low-income households (<80% AMI) • owner occupied homes for low, moderate, and gap income households (>50% AMI) 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 470 Attachment: Carman Dr PUDZ Staff Report - CAO reviewed (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) PUDZ-PL2021000624 Carman Drive 15 RPUD Page 16 of 19 May 11, 2022May 3, 2022 The proposed affordability commitment does not satisfy these needs identified in the 2021 Collier County Housing Demand Model. As outlined in the GMPA analysis, staff’s recommendation is to provide: 1) 20% of the total units (42 of 212 DUs) in the “Low” affordable housing category (>50% to <80% of the AMI); and, 2) 10% of the total units (21 of 212) in the “Moderate” affordable housing category, at a maximum of 100% of the AMI. 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. Staff does not research or review other sites in the evaluation of the 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. The RPUD is proposed for up to 212 residential units. Any development anticipated by this PUD will require significant site alteration and will be subject to applicable federal, state, and local development regulations during the SDP and/or platting process and again as part of the building permit process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended. The project must comply with the criteria set forth in LDC Section 6.02.00 regarding Adequate Public Facilities (APF) and must be consistent with applicable goals and objectives of the GMP related to adequate public facilities. Utilities facilities are address in the RPUD Exhibit F, Development Commitments, providing that at the time of application for subdivision Plans and Plat (PPL) and/or Site Development Plan (SDP) approval, offsite improvements and/or upgrades to the wastewater collection/transmission system may be required to adequately handle the total estimated peak hour flow from the project. Whether or not such improvements are necessary, and if so, the exact nature of such improvements and/or upgrades shall be determined during PPL or SDP review. Such improvement and/or upgrades as may be necessary shall be permitted and installed at the developer's expense and may be required to be in place prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any portion or phase of the development that triggers the need for such improvements and/or upgrades. Transportation Planning staff finds this petition consistent with the GMP. Operational impacts will be addressed at time of first development order (SDP or Plat). Additionally, 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 471 Attachment: Carman Dr PUDZ Staff Report - CAO reviewed (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) PUDZ-PL2021000624 Carman Drive 15 RPUD Page 17 of 19 May 11, 2022May 3, 2022 the project’s development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. To be determined by the Board during its advertised public hearing. DEVIATION DISCUSSION The petitioner is seeking two deviations from the requirements of the LDC. The deviations are directly extracted from RPUD Exhibit E, List of Requested Deviations from LDC. The petitioner’s rationale and staff analysis/recommendation are outlined below. Proposed Deviation # 1: (Buffer Requirements) Deviation from LDC Section 4.06.02.C, which requires a 15-foot-wide Type “B” buffer between single- family and multi-family dwelling units and amenity centers, to instead allow for a 7.5-foot-wide Type “B” buffer between internal dwelling units and on-site recreation/amenity uses. The buffer will contain 3- gallon muhly grass, planted 3-feet off center on the residential side of the Type “B” plant materials. Petitioner’s Justification: The recreation area is intended to serve residents of the community and uphold a common architectural theme consistent with the development. The facility will be an extension of the residential uses within development and will not require extensive buffers that will segregate residents from these amenities. The Applicant will provide the code minimum number of required plantings within the 7.5-foot-wide buffer strip to ensure the deviation does not result in a net loss of vegetation within the project and provide appropriate screening between uses. The Applicant will provide a buffer that will contain 3 gallon muhly grass spaced 3’ on center on the residential side of the Type B buffer plantings in the buffer. This proposed planting will provide additional coverage and screening, as well as visual interest in the buffer area. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff recommends APPROVAL, finding that, in compliance with LDC section 10.02.13.A.3., the petitioner has demonstrated that “the element may be waived without detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community,” and the petitioner as demonstrated that the deviation is “justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations” in accordance with LDC section 10.02.13.B.5.h. Proposed Deviation 2: (Fence/Wall/Berm Height) Deviation from LDC Section 5.03.02.C.2, which permits a maximum fence/wall height of 6 feet in residential zoning districts, to instead allow for a maximum fence/wall/berm height of 10 feet along the PUD perimeter boundary. Petitioner’s Justification: The proposed wall height will mitigate the noise impact and appropriately screen the site from the surrounding attraction and residential uses. The proposed deviation will allow for additional visual screening between the proposed uses, utility sites, and adjacent roadways, while ensuring a quality design aesthetic via screening of the wall by required 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 472 Attachment: Carman Dr PUDZ Staff Report - CAO reviewed (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) PUDZ-PL2021000624 Carman Drive 15 RPUD Page 18 of 19 May 11, 2022May 3, 2022 perimeter plantings. The design will serve to enhance public health, safety and welfare. In no case shall the fence/wall/berm be less than 6 feet in height. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Similar deviations have been approved in other RPUDs, and given the site conditions and adjacencies, staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that “the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community,” and per LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is “justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations.” NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The applicant conducted a NIM on October 25, 2021 at 5:00 p.m. at the Fairway Bible Church, 3855 The Lords Way. The meeting was attended by four members of the public, plus one virtual attendee via Zoom. The meeting lasted approximately 50 minutes, and questions were focused on building heights, off-site preservation, buffering of Sapphire Cove, eagle nest protections, unit types, development schedule including Carman Drive improvements, and general inquiries about various developments planned in the vicinity. See Attachment B for the Applicant’s Backup Material which includes a copy of the sign-in sheet, handouts, and NIM summary. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) REVIEW This project does require Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, as this project did meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. Specifically, the project is within the 660-foot bald eagle nest protection zone. Environmental Services staff recommends approval of the petition. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: This Staff Report was reviewed by the County Attorney’s office on May 2, 2022. RECOMMENDATION: There is a companion Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) petition, PL20210000623. The RPUD may only be found consistent with the GMP if the GMPA is approved and becomes effective. Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward Petition PUDR- PL20210000624 Carman Drive 15 RPUD rezone to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 473 Attachment: Carman Dr PUDZ Staff Report - CAO reviewed (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) PUDZ-PL2021000624 Carman Drive 15 RPUD Page 19 of 19 May 11, 2022May 3, 2022 with a recommendation of approval subject to the following affordability commitments: 1) 20% of the total units (42 of 212 DUs) in the “Low” affordable housing category (>50% to <80% of the AMI); and, 2) 10% of the total units (21 of 212) in the “Moderate” affordable housing category, at a maximum of 100% of the AMI. Attachments: A. Proposed Ordinance B. Application/Backup Materials 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 474 Attachment: Carman Dr PUDZ Staff Report - CAO reviewed (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 475 Attachment: Att A - Ordinance - 042622-corrected (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD)Revised 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 476 Attachment: Att A - Ordinance - 042622-corrected (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) Carman Drive 15 RPUD Last Revised: April 22, 2022 Page 1 of 9 EXHIBIT “A” LIST OF PERMITTED USES Carman Drive 15 RPUD Regulations for development of this PUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this document and all applicable sections of the Growth Management Plan (GMD), the Land Development Code (LDC), and the Administrative Code in effect at the time of approval of the first Site Development Plan (SDP) or plat. Where the PUD ordinance does not provide development standards, then the provision of the specific sections of the LDC that are otherwise applicable shall apply. PERMITTED USES: A maximum of 212 dwelling units shall be permitted in this PUD. 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: I. RESIDENTIAL TRACTS A. Principal Uses: 1. Single-family detached dwelling units. 2. Two-family dwelling units. 3. Townhouses. 4. Multi-family dwelling units. 5. Recreational uses and facilities for residents and guests, including but not limited to: swimming pools, tennis courts, volleyball courts, walking paths, picnic areas, recreation buildings, and basketball/shuffle board courts. B. Accessory Uses: Accessory uses customarily associated with Permitted Principal Uses, including but not limited to: 1. Customary accessory uses and structures including carports, garages, and utility buildings. 2. Temporary sales trailers and model units. 3. Essential services, including interim and permanent utility and maintenance facilities. 4. Water management facilities. 5. Walls, berms and signs. 6. Passive open space uses and structures, including, but not limited to landscaped areas, gazebos, park benches, and walking trails. Any other principal use that is determined to be comparable to the foregoing by the Board of Zoning Appeals, or Hearing Examiner, pursuant to the process outlined in the Land Development Code (LDC). 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 477 Attachment: Att A - Ordinance - 042622-corrected (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) Carman Drive 15 RPUD Last Revised: April 22, 2022 Page 2 of 9 EXHIBIT “B” DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Carman Drive 15 RPUD The standards for land uses within the development shall be as stated in these development standard tables. 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. Guardhouses, gatehouses, access control structures, clock towers, columns, decorative hardscaping or architectural embellishments associated with the project’s entrance are permitted and shall have no required internal setbacks; however, such structures cannot be located where they create sight distance issues for motorists and pedestrians and cannot exceed 35 feet in actual height. TABLE I RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PERMITTED USES AND STANDARDS Single-Family Detached Two-Family Townhouse Multi-Family Clubhouse/ Recreation Buildings Min. Lot Area 3,600 SF 2,430 SF 1,620 SF 10,000 SF N/A Min. Lot Width 40’ 27’ 18’ 100’ N/A Min. Lot Depth 90’ 90’ 90’ 100’ N/A SETBACKS Front Yard(1) 15’(2)(3) 15’(2)(3) 15’(2) 15’ 15’ Side Yard(5) 5’ 0’/5’ 0’/5’ 10’ 10’ Rear Yard (Principal)(4&5) Rear Yard (Accessory)(4&5) 7.5’ 5’ 7.5’ 5’ 7.5’ 5’ 10’(4) 5’ 10’ 5’ Min. Distance Between Principal Structures 10’ 10’ 10’ 10’ for 1 & 2- story buildings ½ Building Height for 3- story buildings or higher 10’ Maximum Height(6) Actual Zoned 45’ 40’ 45’ 40’ 45’ 40’ 55’ 45’ 45’ 40’ (1) Front setback is measured from building to right-of-way, road easement line or in the case of multi-family dwelling types the edge of pavement of the drive aisle. Front setback for multi-family dwelling types shall be a minimum of 10 feet where measured from parking stall. (2) Front-loading/front-entry garages shall be setback a minimum of 23’ from the back of sidewalk. Units with side-loaded garages shall have a minimum 10' setback from the private right-of-way or road easement line. (3) Corner lots shall provide one (1) front yard setback within the yard that contains the driveway/vehicular access to the dwelling unit. The secondary front yard that does not contain the driveway/vehicular access to the dwelling unit shall provide a minimum 10-foot setback 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 478 Attachment: Att A - Ordinance - 042622-corrected (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) Carman Drive 15 RPUD Last Revised: April 22, 2022 Page 3 of 9 measured from the right-of-way, and will have no overhang into the utility easement if there are any buildings adjacent to that secondary front yard setback. (4) 0’ principal and accessory setbacks are permitted from lake maintenance easements and landscape buffer easements, which will be separate platted tracts or tracts on the PPL/SDP. (5) There shall be no setback restrictions to the installation of fencing to create private yards between principal structures. (6) Buildings in the residential development tract abutting the northern property line are limited to 35’/2 stories for maximum zoned height and 40’ for actual height. GENERAL: Except as provided for herein, all criteria set forth below shall be understood to be in relation to individual parcel or lot boundary lines, or between structures. Condominium, and/or homeowners’ association boundaries shall not be utilized for determining development standards. Landscape buffers and lake maintenance easements shall be platted as separate tracts at time of subdivision plat approval, or labeled as separate tracks on the SDP. Note: Nothing in this PUD document shall be deemed to approve a deviation from the LDC unless it is expressly stated in a list of deviations. 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 479 Attachment: Att A - Ordinance - 042622-corrected (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) CARMAN DRIVE(PRIVATE)R R R R 10' WIDE TYPE "A" BUFFER WITH OPTIONAL FENCE BUFFER PER LDC AT TIME OF SDP OR PPL WITH OPTIONAL FENCE 20' WIDE TYPE "C" BUFFER (MAX. COMBINED FENCE/WALL/BERM HEIGHT OF 10' AND MIN. OF 6') BUFFER PER LDC AT TIME OF SDP OR PPL WITH OPTIONAL FENCE BUFFER PER LDC AT TIME OF SDP OR PPL WITH OPTIONAL FENCE PRESERVE PRESERVE ZONED: GOOD TURN CENTER MPUD USE: VACANT COMMERCIAL ZONED: THE LORD'S WAY RPUD USE: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONED: HACIENDA LAKES MPUD USE: FLORIDA SPORTS PARK ZONED: MCMULLEN MPUD USE: VACANT MIXED USE ZONED: AGRICULTURE USE: FPL UTILITY SITE RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROADCOLLIER BOULEVARD(CR 951)170' FPL EASEMENT ZONED: HAMMOCK PARK MPUD USE: COMMERCIAL / MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 2 R B:\Projects\1248-100 (Carman Drive 15) Planning & Zoning\Drawings-Exhibits\1248-100-01 MCP\Current Plans\12481000106.dwgSET #: SHEET :PLAN REVISIONSCARMAN DRIVE 15 RPUDRPUD MASTER PLANEXHIBIT CWALDROPENGINEERING28100 BONITA GRANDE DRIVE - SUITE 305 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135P: 239-405-7777 F: 239-405-7899 EMAIL: info@waldropengineering.comCIVIL ENGINEERING &LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS12/13/2021REVISED PER COUNTY COMMENTS1NORTH SCALE: 1" = 350' INGRESS/ EGRESS LEGEND NOTES: 1. THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND IS SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION DUE TO AGENCY PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS. 2. ALL ACREAGES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION AT THE TIME OF SDP OR PLAT APPROVAL. 3. NO ONSITE PRESERVE PROVIDED. OFF-SITE MITIGATION TO BE PROVIDED PER LDC SEC 3.05.07 4. THE LOCATION OF THE ONSITE LAKE AND RESIDENTIAL TRACTS IS PRELIMINARY AND MAY BE ADJUSTED AT SITE PLAN APPROVAL. MAXIMUM PERMITTED UNITS / DENSITY CALCULATION: 15.41± ACRES X 13.8 UNITS / ACRE = 212 UNITS LAKE RESIDENTIALR PROPOSED PAVEMENT 1 OF 2 1248-100-01 #DEVIATION LOCATION 01/24/2022REVISED PER COUNTY COMMENTS204/20/2022REVISED PER COUNTY COMMENTS39.A.3.b Packet Pg. 480 Attachment: Att A - Ordinance - 042622-corrected (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) WALL CROSS SECTION (TYP.) N.T.S. MAX. COMBINED FENCE/WALL/BERM HEIGHT OF 10' AND MIN. OF 6' 3:1 M A X . PERIMETER BERM PROPERTY BOUNDARY MATCH EXISTING GRADE VARIES 2.0' TYP.VARIES CARMAN DRIVE 2 3:1 MAX. 2 OF 2 1248-100-01 B:\Projects\1248-100 (Carman Drive 15) Planning & Zoning\Drawings-Exhibits\1248-100-01 MCP\Current Plans\12481000106.dwgSET #: SHEET :PLAN REVISIONSCARMAN DRIVE 15 RPUDRPUD MASTER PLANEXHIBIT CWALDROPENGINEERING28100 BONITA GRANDE DRIVE - SUITE 305 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135P: 239-405-7777 F: 239-405-7899 EMAIL: info@waldropengineering.comCIVIL ENGINEERING &LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS12/13/2021REVISED PER COUNTY COMMENTS101/24/2022REVISED PER COUNTY COMMENTS204/20/2022REVISED PER COUNTY COMMENTS39.A.3.b Packet Pg. 481 Attachment: Att A - Ordinance - 042622-corrected (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) Carman Drive 15 RPUD Last Revised: April 22, 2022 Page 6 of 9 EXHIBIT “D” LEGAL DESCRIPTION Carman Drive 15 RPUD Parcel One: The East ½ of the North ½ of the Southeast ¼ of the Southwest ¼ of Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26, Collier County, Florida Parcel Two: The South ½ of the West ½ of the North ½ of the Southeast ¼ of the Southwest ¼ of Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida Parcels contains 15.41 acres, more or less. 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 482 Attachment: Att A - Ordinance - 042622-corrected (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) Carman Drive 15 RPUD Last Revised: April 22, 2022 Page 7 of 9 EXHIBIT “E” LIST OF REQUESTED DEVIATIONS FROM LDC Carman Drive 15 RPUD Deviation 1: Deviation from LDC Section 4.06.02.C.2, which requires a 15-foot-wide Type “B” buffer between single-family and multi-family dwelling units and amenity centers, to instead allow for a 7.5-foot-wide Type “B” buffer between internal dwelling units and on-site recreation/amenity uses. The buffer will contain 3-gallon muhly grass, planted 3-feet off center on the residential side of the Type “B” plant materials. Deviation 2: Deviation from LDC Section 5.03.02.C.2, which permits a maximum fence/wall height of 6 feet in residential zoning districts, to instead allow for a maximum fence/wall/berm height of 10 feet along Carman Drive. 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 483 Attachment: Att A - Ordinance - 042622-corrected (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) Carman Drive 15 RPUD Last Revised: April 22, 2022 Page 8 of 9 EXHIBIT “F” DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS Carman Drive 15 RPUD 1. GENERAL A. One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for PUD monitoring until close-out of the PUD, and this entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all PUD commitments until close-out of the PUD. At the time of this PUD approval, the Managing Entity is Carman Drive 15, LLC. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring and commitments to a successor entity, then it must provide a copy of a legally binding document that needs to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney. After such approval, the Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon written approval of the transfer by County staff, and the successor entity shall become the Managing Entity. As Owner and Developer sell off tracts, the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to County that includes an acknowledgement of the commitments required by the PUD by the new owner and the new owner’s agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing Entity, but the Managing Entity shall not be relieved of its responsibility under this Section. When the PUD is closed-out, then the Managing Entity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of PUD commitments. B. The RPUD shall demonstrate consistency with affordable housing goals and objectives of the Housing Element by providing the following: 1. 20% of the total units (42 units) will be rented to moderate-income households. Moderate income means those households earning between 81%-120% Area Median Income (AMI). Any time that a unit becomes vacant, assuming less than 42 units are occupied by moderate income households, the next available unit will be offered to a qualifying moderate-income household. 2. This restriction shall remain in place for thirty (30) years from the date of issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. AMI rent limit adjustments will be made on an annual basis according to the most recent Collier County approved Table of Rental Rates. As part of the annual PUD monitoring report the developer will include an annual report that provides the progress and monitoring of occupancy of income restricted units. C. Pursuant to Section 125.022(5) F.S., issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. D. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. E. The developer, its successor or assignee, shall provide to any potential resident a disclosure statement with respect to the noise that is associated with the Swamp Buggy Races located at 8250 Collier Boulevard, Naples, Florida within the Florida Sports Park (within the Hacienda Lakes RPUD) as it relates to the location of this RPUD. The statement shall disclose that the Florida Sports Park and Swamp Buggy operations regularly generate noise which may be heard on the Carman Drive 15 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 484 Attachment: Att A - Ordinance - 042622-corrected (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) Carman Drive 15 RPUD Last Revised: April 22, 2022 Page 9 of 9 RPUD property, both during the day and into the evening, including but not limited to, noise from swamp buggy racing, tractor pulls, festivals and music concerts. This statement must be presented to the tenant as part of the lease contract. Within 120 days of approval of this PUD, Owner shall record in the public records of Collier County a notice of proximity to the Florida Sports Park and Swamp Buggy grounds. This notice shall disclose that the Florida Sports Park and Swamp Buggy operations regularly generate noise which can be heard on the PUD property, both during the day and into the evening, including but not limited to noise from swamp buggy racing, tractor pulls, festivals, and music concerts. The legal description of the PUD shall be attached to the notice. F. The first 15 units above the base density of 23 units must be through the acquisition of TDR credits. G. All dwelling units within the PUD are limited to rental units. 2. TRANSPORTATION A. The maximum total daily trip generation for the PUD shall not exceed 209 two-way PM peak hour net trips based on the use codes in the ITE Manual on trip generation rates in effect at the time of application for SDP/SDPA or subdivision plat approval. 3. ENVIRONMENTAL A. The subject site contained approximately 0.96 acres of native vegetation, of which 25% (0.24 acres) is required to be preserved. The native vegetation preservation requirement will be satisfied off-site in accordance with the Land Development Code through the preservation of a 25.95± acre Off-Site Mitigation Parcel. 4. UTILITIES A. At the time of application for subdivision Plans and Plat (PPL) and/or Site Development Plan (SDP) approval, as the case may be, offsite improvements and/or upgrades to the wastewater collection/transmission system may be required to adequately handle the total estimated peak hour flow from the project. Whether or not such improvements are necessary, and if so, the exact nature of such improvements and/or upgrades shall be determined during PPL or SDP review. Such improvement and/or upgrades as may be necessary shall be permitted and installed at the developer's expense and may be required to be in place prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any portion or phase of the development that triggers the need for such improvements and/or upgrades. 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 485 Attachment: Att A - Ordinance - 042622-corrected (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) CARMAN DRIVE 15 RPUD PUDZ-PL20210000624 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION PACKAGE 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 486 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) Cover Letter 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 487 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) Carman Drive 15 - PUDZ-PL20210000624 Cover Letter – Request Narrative Page 1 of 4 June 11, 2021 REVISED August 25, 2021 REVISED April 26, 2022 Laura DeJohn, AICP Growth Management Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 RE: Carman Drive 15 RPUD PUD Amendment (PUDZ-PL20210000624) Dear Ms. DeJohn: Enclosed for your review is the Application for PUD Rezoning for a property generally located North of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and West of Carman Drive in unincorporated Collier County. The subject property is approximately 15.4 +/- acres. The property is designated as Urban Residential Fringe for future land use and is zoned Agricultural. EXISTING CONDITIONS & SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT The property is currently undeveloped and vacant. Prior to the owner buying the property, the land was illegally cleared. Accesses to the property is gained by Carman Drive, a two-lane local roadway. SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT The subject property is located in an urbanized portion of the County as evidenced by the property’s proximity to Collier Boulevard, a six-lane arterial roadway, and Rattlesnake Hammock Road. The Property is also proximate to existing and approved urban levels of development, as well as major public facilities including schools, hospitals, and libraries. Please refer to Table 1 below, which provides an inventory of the immediately adjacent Future Land Use Categories, zoning districts, and existing land uses. TABLE 1: INVENTORY OF SURROUNDING LANDS DIRECTION FUTURE LAND USE ZONING DISTRICT EXISTING LAND USE North Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict RPUD Single Family Residential (The Lord’s way 30 Acre RPUD) South Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict MPUD Vacant Mixed Use (McMullen MPUD) East Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict MPUD Florida Sports Park (Swamp Buggy) (Hacienda Lakes) West Mixed Use Activity Center; Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict MPUD, Commercial; Agriculture Vacant Mixed Use (Good Turn Center) Vacant Commercial; Utility Site The Property is northeast of a designated Mixed-Use Activity Center, which is specifically intended for concentrated commercial and mixed-use development due to access to the arterial roadway network 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 488 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) Carman Drive 15 - PUDZ-PL20210000624 Cover Letter-Request Narrative Page 2 of 4 and available public services. Activity Center #7 encompasses 209+/- acres at the intersection of CR 951 and Rattlesnake Hammock Road and includes a diverse and intensive mix of approved PUDs and MPUDs, which allow for multi-family, commercial, hotel, and assisted living facility uses. The Lord’s Way 30 Acre RPUD to the north of the Property is approved for residential dwelling units of single-family, two-family, townhomes, and multi-family types with a maximum of 75 units (2.5 du/acre) per Ordinance 14-11. The Hacienda Lakes MPUD to the east of the Property allows for a maximum of 1,760 residential dwelling units and a variety of commercial, professional, business park, medical office, and hotel uses throughout the MPUD per Ordinance 11-41. The Property is immediately adjacent to the Attraction Tract within the Hacienda Lakes MPUD which allows for a variety of amusement and recreational uses and is the location of the Swamp Buggy Race at the Florida Sports Park. The proposed addition of residential units uses to the RPUD will not impact the project’s compatibility with the surrounding land use pattern and will serve as an appropriate transition from the intensive Collier Blvd. frontage to the lower density and intensity uses in Hacienda Lakes to the east. COMPANION GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT The Applicant has filed a companion Growth Management Plan Amendment (PL20210000623) requesting the ability to develop the Carman Drive Subdistrict as a residential project with 212 units: The intent of this Subdistrict, which comprises 15.41 acres, is to allow for a maximum of 212 dwelling units (limited to rental units), of which 42 units (20%) will be affordable housing units for persons earning between 81-120% of the Area Median Income (AMI). This Subdistrict is intended to promote affordable and workforce housing in proximity to transit, employment centers, and public infrastructure, which will serve to reduce existing trip lengths. The development of this Subdistrict will be governed by the following criteria: a. Rezoning is required to be in the form of a PUD. b. Residential uses are allowed at a density of 13.8 dwelling units per acre, calculated based upon the entire Subdistrict acreage, yielding a maximum of 212 dwelling units. The first 15 units above the base density of 23 units must be through the acquisition of TDR credits. c. Lands described as Carman Drive Subdistrict are subject to the following: Twenty Percent (20%) of the units will be affordable housing units and restricted to households earning 81-120% of the AMI. This restriction shall remain in place for no less than thirty (30) years from the date issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. As part of the annual PUD monitoring report the developer will include an annual report that provides the progress and monitoring of occupancy of income restricted units. d. All dwellings will be rental units. The RPUD rezone application is directly supported by a market study that substantiates the need for affordable housing across Collier County, and within the immediate area of the subject property. The RPUD will be fully compliant with the Growth Management Plan (GMP) upon adoption of the companion GMP Amendment to designate the site within the Carman Drive Subdistrict. The RPUD and will allow for infill development of affordable and workforce housing options in the Urban Service Area 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 489 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) Carman Drive 15 - PUDZ-PL20210000624 Cover Letter-Request Narrative Page 3 of 4 with a critical affordable housing component. The analysis of the project’s consistency with the GMP is outlined in the Evaluation Criteria attached to this application. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT/JUSTIFICATION The RPUD to permit residential uses in the project directly addresses the County’s identified goals of providing diverse housing for the workforce; clustering new development within established urban areas with adequate infrastructure particularly along arterial corridors. Due to the project location and the surrounding area, the RPUD will not have connective accesses to areas outside of the project boundary. Areas such as the Florida Power and Light utility station and adjacent preserve are non-ideal connective environments and including connection to these properties would negatively impact to these areas. Within the project boundary, internal pedestrian connectivity will be provided. The pedestrian walkway is to encourage residents to walk between residential area and provided amenities. In addition to the internal pedestrian connectivity, the pedestrian walkways will be connected to the future development of Carman Drive sidewalks. Buffers, open space, and preserve areas will be provided in accordance with the GMP and LDC to uphold the County’s intent for attractive, well-planned and compatible development. An enhanced Type “C” buffer is provided along Carman Drive for continuity with the development to the north. The proposed PUD Master Plan and associated development standards for the residential units are consistent with the height and setbacks approved for similar residential projects in the immediate area. ENVIRONMENTAL: As outlined in the Environmental Report prepared by Passarella & Associates, Inc., the site consists of undeveloped forested and non-forested uplands in addition to wetland areas that contain high levels of exotic vegetation. Per the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS), a total of two vegetative associations and land uses where identified on the property. The dominate habitat type located on the property is Disturbed Land, Hydric. The listed species survey conducted on the property documented no listed species within the Property. A small western portion of the project site is located within 660 feet of a Bald Eagle Nest. Prior to construction activities, the developer will coordinate with Collier County and the USFWS regarding applicable guidelines and permitting requirements. The PUD identifies required preservation area in full compliance with the GMP and LDC. A letter from the Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, indicates no significant archaeological or historical sites are recorded or likely to be present within the subject property. Prior to land clearing by the previous owner, the site contained 0.96 acres of native vegetation, resulting in a native preserve requirement of 0.24 acres. In accordance with Section 3.05.07 H.1.f, due to the small size of the required native vegetation preserve (i.e., less than 0.5± acre), lack of native vegetation on-site and isolation from larger, regionally significant preserve lands, the designation of an off-site native vegetation preserve is proposed to satisfy the native vegetation preservation requirement for the Project. This proposal will provide a greater ecological and regional benefit than the creation of a small, isolated native vegetation preserve on-site. Pursuant to Conservation Coastal Management Element, the development will meet the required minimum preservation and vegetation retention requirements through a donation of 25.78 acres of an 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 490 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) Carman Drive 15 - PUDZ-PL20210000624 Cover Letter-Request Narrative Page 4 of 4 off-site mitigation parcel, as detailed in the attached Environmental Report prepared by Passarella and Associates. Based upon this information, the site is suitable for increased densities due to a lack of environmental sensitivity and on-site natural resources. INFRASTRUCTURE: Accesses to the subject property is proposed to be provided to Carman Drive via two connections. Carman Drive is a private road owned by Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC. The northern connection will be limited to an egress only and southern connection will be a full access connection. The Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) prepared by TR Transportation Consultants, Inc., included an assumption of 212 single-family units only, in order to provide a worst-case scenario, and demonstrates no roadway segments show a significant impact as a result of the development of traffic being added to the roadway network. Potable water and sanitary sewer for this project will be provided by Collier County Utilities (CCU) through connections to existing infrastructure located along Rattlesnake Hammock Road. Exhibit IV.E. demonstrates the property’s proximity to available public infrastructure including parks, schools, fire, and EMS services. This data reflects that the subject property is an appropriate location for the addition of density, and the compact development pattern will effectively utilize the County’s investment in public infrastructure in this area. CONCLUSION: In summary, the proposed amendment will allow for up to 212 highly demanded rental units. The dwelling units will be compatible with the surrounding area while providing affordable housing options for the workforce (42 of the total units will be priced for moderate income households). The ability to provide new affordable housing within an established urban area with sufficient infrastructure meets the needs of the rapidly developing area. Not only will the RPUD provide affordable housing, but the proposed development will also include amenities, pedestrian walkways, a live-work environment, and a unique high-density community. As outlined in the attached application, the proposed RPUD is consistent with the LDC and the proposed GMP amendment. Should you require additional information or have any questions, please feel free to contact me directly at (239) 405-7777, extension 2207, or alexis.crespo@waldropengineering.com. Sincerely, RVi Planning + Landscape Architecture Alexis V. Crespo, AICP, LEED AP Senior Vice President - Planning Enclosures cc: David Torres, Carman Drive 15, LLC Richard Yovanovich, Esq., CYK Law Firm 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 491 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) Approved Expedited Review Form 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 492 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) CERTIFICATE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPEDITED REVIEW Name of Development: _Carman Drive 15______ Address/Location: ___8496 Rattlesnake Hammock Road (Parcel No. 00417000004)_________ Applicant /Agent: __Waldrop Engineering c/o Alexis Crespo, AICP_ Phone / Email: _(239) 850-8525 alexis.crespo@waldropengineering.com__________________ Size of Property: ___15.4 acres____________________________________________________ Proposed Use: _Residential_______________________________________________________ Total Number Residential Units Planned: 212 dwelling units Number of Affordable Housing Units Planned: Rental _______ Owner Occupied _____ 121% - 140% AMI - GAP Income Rental _42 OR_ Owner Occupied 42__ 81% - 120% AMI - Moderate Income Rental _______ Owner Occupied ____ 51% - 80% AMI - Low Income Rental _______ Owner Occupied _____ 50% or less AMI - Very Low Income Rental _______ Owner Occupied _____ 30% or less AMI - Extremely Low Income Permit Number, if available: __PL20210000623______________________________________ Proposed Land Use Restriction: X - PUD Restriction or AHDB Agreement - Developer Agreement - Impact Fee Deferral Agreement - Grant Restriction - Other: __________________________ I hereby certify that the above described project meets the definition of providing affordable Housing in Collier County and as such is entitled to participate in the County’s “Expedited Review Procedures of Affordable Housing” as described in the Collier County Administrative Code through Resolution No. 2018-40. By: Date: Community and Human Services Division By: Date: 6/11/2021 Builder/ Owner/ Developer/ Contractor This Certification must be submitted to the Growth Management Department with permit application package, or plan revisions, within nine months of date of issuance. 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 493 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) Application Form 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 494 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercounty.gov (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 March 4, 2020 Page 1 of 11 Application for a Public Hearing for PUD Rezone, Amendment to PUD or PUD to PUD Rezone PETITION NO PROJECT NAME DATE PROCESSED PUD Rezone (PUDZ): LDC subsection 10.02.13 A.-F., Ch. 3 G. 1 of the Administrative Code Amendment to PUD (PUDA): LDC subsection 10.02.13 E. and Ch. 3 G. 2 of the Administrative Code PUD to PUD Rezone (PUDR): LDC subsection 10.02.13 A.-F. APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION Name of Property Owner(s): _________________________________________________________ Name of Applicant if different than owner: _____________________________________________ Address: _________________________City: _______________ State: _________ ZIP: ___________ Telephone: _______________________ Cell: ______________________ Fax: __________________ E-Mail Address: ____________________________________________________________________ Name of Agent: ____________________________________________________________________ Firm: _____________________________________________________________________________ Address: ____________________________City: _______________ State: _______ ZIP: __________ Telephone: ____________________ Cell: ____________________ Fax: _______________________ E-Mail Address: ____________________________________________________________________ Be aware that Collier County has lobbyist regulations. Guide yourself accordingly and ensure that you are in compliance with these regulations. To be completed by staff 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 495 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD)Carman Drive 15, LLC 7742 ALICO RD Fort Myers FL 33912 1-877-357-8271 x700 N/A david@torrescompanies.com Alexis Crespo, AICP, & Richard Yovanovich, Esq RVi Planning + Landscape Architecture & CYK Law Firm 28100 Bonita Grand Drive Bonita Springs FL 34135 239-405-7777 239-850-8525 238-405-7899 acrespo@rviplanning.com & ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercounty.gov (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 March 4, 2020 Page 2 of 11 REZONE REQUEST This application is requesting a rezone from: _________________________ Zoning district(s) to the ________________________________ zoning district(s). Present Use of the Property: _________________________________________________________ Proposed Use (or range of uses) of the property: _________________________________________ Original PUD Name: ________________________________________________________________ Ordinance No.: ____________________________________________________________________ PROPERTY INFORMATION On a separate sheet attached to the application, provide a detailed legal description of the property covered by the application: •If the request involves changes to more than one zoning district, the applicant shall include a separate legal description for property involved in each district; •The applicant shall submit 4 copies of a recent survey (completed within the last six months, maximum 1" to 400' scale), if required to do so at the pre-application meeting; and •The applicant is responsible for supplying the correct legal description. If questions arise concerning the legal description, an engineer's certification or sealed survey may be required. Section/Township/Range: / / Lot: Block: Subdivision: ___________________________________________________ Metes & Bounds Description: _________________________________________________________ Plat Book: Page #: Property I.D. Number: ____________________________________ Size of Property: _______ ft. x _______ ft. = ________ Total Sq. Ft. Acres: _________ Address/ General Location of Subject Property: __________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ PUD District (refer to LDC subsection 2.03.06 C): Commercial Residential Community Facilities Industrial Mixed Use Other: ________________ 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 496 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD)Agricultural RPUD Vacant Residential N/A N/A 14 50 26 00417000004 15.42 8496 RATTLESNAKE HAMM RD North of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and West of Carman Drive n 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercounty.gov (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 March 4, 2020 Page 3 of 11 ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE Zoning Land Use N S E W If the owner of the subject property owns contiguous property please provide a detailed legal description of the entire contiguous property on a separate sheet attached to the application. Section/Township/Range: / / Lot: Block: Subdivision: ___________________________________________________ Plat Book: Page #: Property I.D. Number: ____________________________________ Metes & Bounds Description: _________________________________________________________ ASSOCIATIONS Required: List all registered Home Owner Association(s) that could be affected by this petition. Provide additional sheets if necessary. Information can be found on the Board of County Commissioner’s website at http://www.colliergov.net/Index.aspx?page=774. Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______ Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______ Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______ Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______ Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______ 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 497 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD)RPUD (The Lord's Way)Residential (The Lord's Way) MPUD (McMullen)Vacant (Watercrest ALF and Commercial) MPUD (Hacienda Lakes)Carman Dr; Mixed Use (Swamp Buggy) MPUD; Commercial (Good Turn Center)Vacant Commercial (Good Turn Center) 14 50 26 5201 2138 00417760001 14 50 26 S1/2 OF SE1/4 OF SW1/4 LESS W 80 FT, LESS R/W AS DESC IN OR 5201 PG 2138 Naples Lakes Country Club HOA, Inc. 4784 Inverness Club Drive Naples FL 34112 East Naples Civic Association, Inc. 3823 Tamiami Trail E #274 Naples FL 34112 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercounty.gov (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 March 4, 2020 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 pu blic 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 c onditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. e.The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. f.The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. g.The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. h.Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications of justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. Deed Restrictions: The County is legally precluded from enforcing deed restrictions; however, many communities have adopted such restrictions. You may wish to contact the civic or property owners association in the area for which this use is being requested in order to asce rtain whether or not the request is affected by existing deed restrictions. 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 498 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercounty.gov (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 March 4, 2020 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 applicati on “closed” through inactivity shall be deemed withdrawn. An application deemed “closed” may be re-opened by submission of a new application, repayment of all application fees and the grant of a determination of “sufficiency”. Further review of the request will be subject to the then current code. 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 499 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD)N/A 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercounty.gov (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 March 4, 2020 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 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 500 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD)X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercounty.gov (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 March 4, 2020 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 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 501 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD)X X X X 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 March 4, 2020 Page 11 of 11 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercounty.gov 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 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 502 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD)Alexis Crespo 6/14/2021 Evaluation Criteria 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 503 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) Carman Drive 15 RPUD Evaluation Criteria Page 1 of 6 Carman Drive 15 RPUD EVALUATION CRITERIA PUD REZONE CONSIDERATIONS (LDC SECTION 10.02.13.B) 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 Carman Drive 15 RPUD (“Property”) is located in an area of existing and planned urban development within the County’s Urban-designated area. The Property is an infill development ideally located within the Urban Residential Fringe future land use category. As outlined in the Growth Management Plan (GMP) Amendment, the Applicant is proposing to change the underlying future land use category to the site-specific “Carman Drive Subdistrict” to accommodate the proposed development program with commitments to utilize 15 TDR credits and provide an affordable housing component in the form of 42 units at the moderate-income level (see also PL2021-623). The GMP amendment also stipulates that all dwelling units will be rental units to meet the market demand of the area. The subject property is located in an urbanized portion of the County as evidenced by the property’s proximity to Collier Boulevard, a six-lane arterial roadway, and Rattlesnake Hammock Road. The Property is also proximate to existing and approved urban levels of development, as well as major public facilities including schools, hospitals, and libraries. The Property is immediately northeast of a designated Mixed-Use Activity Center, which is specifically intended for concentrated commercial and mixed-use development due to access to the arterial roadway network and available public services. Activity Center #7 encompasses 209+/- acres at the intersection of Collier Blvd. and Rattlesnake Hammock Road and includes a diverse and intensive mix of approved PUDs, which allow for multi-family, commercial, hotel, and assisted living facility uses. Sapphire Cove (FKA Lord’s Way 30 Acre RPUD) to the north of the Property is being developed with single-family residential dwelling units. The RPUD zoning approval allowed for single-family, two-family, townhomes, and multi-family types with a maximum of 75 units (2.5 du/acre) per Ordinance 14-11. The Good Turn Center MPUD immediately to the west of the Property is approved for a maximum of 100,000 square feet of commercial land uses and/or a variety of skilled nursing care facility uses with a maximum of 200 units (21 du/acre) per Ordinance 09-53. The Hacienda Lakes MPUD to the east of the Property allows for a maximum of 1,760 residential dwelling units and a variety of commercial, professional, business park, medical office, and hotel uses throughout the MPUD per Ordinance 11-41. The Property is immediately adjacent to the “Attraction Tract” within the Hacienda Lakes MPUD which allows for a variety of amusement and recreational uses and is developed with the Swamp Buggy Racetrack at the Florida Sports Park. The commercial tract of the Hacienda Lakes MPUD to the south of Rattlesnake Hammock Road is approved for up to 327,500 square feet of retail land uses and 70,000 square feet of professional and medical office uses. 135 hotel rooms are also allowed on this tract. 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 504 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) Carman Drive 15 RPUD Evaluation Criteria Page 2 of 6 Watercrest Senior Living (FKA McMullen MPUD) is located to the south of the Property and is approved for a maximum of 185,000 square feet of commercial and ALF uses. This property is undergoing permitted for a 2 Phase ALF project with approximately 300 care units planned. The Hammock Park MPUD further west of the Watercrest was recently approved for 265 dwelling units at a density of 13.8 du/acre. The surrounding PUD approvals demonstrate the appropriateness of this request to provide an infill housing project in an area with existing and planned development at similar densities. In terms of traffic, the subject property will be accessed via Carman Drive which connects to Rattlesnake Hammock Road, as depicted on the RPUD Master Plan. Carman Drive is a private road owned by Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC and will be constructed to county standards for later conveyance to the Hacienda Lakes CDD. Carman Drive improvements have been approved and reviewed by Collier County under PL2018000046. As outlined in the Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) prepared by TR Transportation Collier Boulevard is shown to have adequate capacity under the projected traffic conditions to serve the project.. The Property is located within the Collier County Water-Sewer District’s (CCWSD) service area and water and wastewater service are readily available via existing facilities. A statement of availability from the Collier County Public Utilities Departments is enclosed as part of this application. Based upon the nature of surrounding uses, the established development pattern at the Rattlesnake Hammock/Collier Boulevard intersection, and the existing levels of public infrastructure to service the proposed RPUD, the Property is suitable for the development of a residential community as proposed through this application. Moreover, the density proposed by the project will ensure the existing land area within the County’s Urban-designated is not underutilized from a public infrastructure standpoint, thereby upholding sound planning principles, as outlined in the companion GMP Amendment. 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 toe 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 property is under Unified Control of Carman Drive 15, LLC, as demonstrated by the Covenant of Unified Control included in the PUDZ application. c. Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the growth management plan. (This is to include identifying what subdistrict, policy or other provision allows the requested uses/density, and fully explaining/addressing all criteria or conditions of that subdistrict, policy or other provision.) FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 505 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) Carman Drive 15 RPUD Evaluation Criteria Page 3 of 6 Policy 5.6: New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code. The proposed RPUD community will be compatible and complementary to the surrounding area, which contains a diverse mix of multi-family and single-family dwelling types, ALFs and planned commercial and recreational uses. Located across from Carman Drive is the Swamp Buggy Track at the Florida Sports Park. This is an open-air sports park that features sporting events that occur only a few times a year on select weekends. As for compatibility with the proposed residential community, the Florida Sports Park is subject to Collier County noise ordinance to limit sound disturbances. Additionally, the distance between the proposed development and the event area is approximately 1,000 feet, this provides significant distance for noise attenuation. The Swamp Buggy Track is within the Hacienda Lakes MPUD which also contains residential dwellings. Therefore, it is anticipated by previous zoning approvals that the track can co-exist with residential land uses in the immediate area. FLUE Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. The RPUD will be accessed via Carman Drive, a two-lane local road connecting to Rattlesnake Hammock Road and The Lord’s Way. Carman Drive is a private road owned by Hacienda Lakes of Naples, LLC and will be constructed to county standards. Carman Drive improvements have been approved and reviewed by Collier County under PL2018000046. FLUE Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. The RPUD development pattern will have an insignificant impact on nearby collector and arterial roads. Due to the size of the site and the proposed layout of the project, looping will not be possible. FLUE Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and/or interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. The interconnection of local streets between developments is also addressed in Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element. Due to buildout of the surrounding properties as well as the location of off-site preserve areas, interconnection is not possible. 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 506 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) Carman Drive 15 RPUD Evaluation Criteria Page 4 of 6 FLUE Policy 7.4: The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. Per LDC 6.06.02, the RPUD will include 5’ sidewalks located on both sides of the street and between units. These sidewalks provide residents with walkability within the project. Additionally, the project will provide a range of housing types with a significant affordability component as outlined in the PUD commitments. CCME Policy 6.1.1: For the County’s Urban Designated Area, Estates Designated Area, Conservation Designated Area, and Agricultural/Rural Mixed Use District, Rural-Industrial District and Rural-Settlement Area District as designated on the FLUM, native vegetation shall be preserved through the application of the following preservation and vegetation retention standards and criteria, unless the development occurs within the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) where the ACSC standards referenced in the Future Land Use Element shall apply. In accordance with Section 3.05.07.H.1.f.vi.b, off-site land donations provided at a 4:1 ratio may be utilized to satisfy the native vegetation preservation requirement. As determined by the native vegetation present on the Project site prior to clearing, the Collier County native vegetation preservation requirement totals 0.24± acre and the utilization of off-site lands at a 4:1 ratio would result in the requirement of a 0.96± acre off-site land donation (i.e., 0.24 acre x 4 = 0.96 acre). Compensation for SFWMD and COE wetland impacts will be provided through the preservation and enhancement of a 25.95± acre Off-Site Mitigation Parcel. The Parcel is located within the limits of the Belle Meade NRPA, an area of Collier County targeted for acquisition and protection by the state, is surrounded by other state owned lands, provides habitat for listed species, and also provides a corridor for wildlife movement through the Picayune Strand State Forest. The Off-Site Mitigation Parcel is comprised of 25.78± acres of native vegetation and therefore exceeds the 0.96± acre off-site native vegetation preservation requirement. The Off-Site Mitigation Parcel will be enhanced through the removal of exotic vegetation, preserved in perpetuity, and protected via a conservation easement dedicated to the SFWMD and Collier County. CCME Objective 7.1: The County shall direct incompatible land uses away from listed animal species and their habitats. The County relies on the listing process of State and Federal agencies to identify species that require special protection because of their endangered, threatened, or species of special concern status. Listed animal species are those species that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission has designated as endangered, threatened, or species of special concern, in accordance with Rules 68A-27.003, 68A-27.004, and 68A-27.005, F.A.C. and those species designated by various federal agencies as Endangered and Threatened species published in 50 CFR 17. 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 507 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) Carman Drive 15 RPUD Evaluation Criteria Page 5 of 6 Within the environmental report, the listed species survey concluded that no listed species were found within the property boundary. A Bald Eagle nest has been documented within 660 feet of the proposed project and the developer will coordinate with Collier County and USFWS regarding applicable guidelines and permitting requirements. 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 RPUD proposes a range of residential uses as described in this application. The proposed addition of residential units uses to the RPUD will not impact the project’s compatibility with the surrounding land use pattern and will serve as an appropriate transition from the intensive Collier Blvd. frontage to the lower density and intensity uses in Hacienda Lakes to the east. These uses are compatible with the single-family community to the north, which is buffered by an existing preserve. The proposed design standards, setbacks, and building height limitations ensure the proposed development will be consistent with the surrounding development pattern. The proposed perimeter buffers will also provide for compatibilty between adjacent uses including an enhanced Type C buffer along Carman Drive. e. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The RPUD will provide 60% on-site open space in accordance with LDC requirements. Open space will be satisfied via the recreation area, lakes, buffers, and other areas of pervious open space placed throughout the development. The required native preserve will be provided off-site in accordance with the LDC. f. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. As outlined in the enclosed application, all required public infrastructure is available and adequate to service the proposed RPUD. g. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The Property can accommodate the 212 dwelling units, as shown on the attached RPUD Master Plan, and represents a compact infill project in the rapidly growing northeast quadrant of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and CR 951. The application demonstrates there is available public infrastructure to support the development as proposed. The project is within the Urban designated portion of the County per the Future Land Use Map. Therefore, the project represents a logical expansion of the existing development pattern to accommodate future growth within Collier County with the urban-designated area. h. 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. 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 508 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) Carman Drive 15 RPUD Evaluation Criteria Page 6 of 6 The proposed development is generally consistent with the PUD regulations contained in the LDC and a determination can be made that the subject development proposes to a degree or at least equivalent to a literal application of such regulations. The Applicant is requesting deviations from the Land Development Code (LDC) in order to support the infill development project. Development of the property in accordance with these deviations will uphold the intent of the RPUD regulations and ensure design consistency, internal connectivity and integration of dwelling types, appropriate vehicular circulation, and the protection of public health, safety and welfare. Further explanation and justification of the deviations are provided in Exhibit “E”. 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 509 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) Affidavit of Authorization 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 510 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 511 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) Covenant of Unified Control 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 512 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) - (MANAGING MEMBER) 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 513 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) Warranty Deed 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 514 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 515 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 516 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) Sunbiz Information 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 517 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) 3/31/2021 Detail by Entity Name search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResultDetail?inquirytype=EntityName&directionType=Initial&searchNameOrder=CARMANDRIVE…1/2 Department of State / Division of Corporations / Search Records / Search by Entity Name / Document Number FEI/EIN Number Date Filed Effective Date State Status Detail by Entity Name Florida Limited Liability Company CARMAN DRIVE 15, LLC Filing Information L20000385625 NONE 12/10/2020 12/09/2020 FL ACTIVE Principal Address 7742 ALICO RD FORT MYERS, FL 33912 Mailing Address 7742 ALICO RD FORT MYERS, FL 33912 Registered Agent Name & Address TORRES, DAVID E 7742 ALICO RD FORT MYERS, FL 33912 Authorized Person(s) Detail Name & Address Title MGR TORRES, DAVID E 7742 ALICO RD FORT MYERS, FL 33912 Annual Reports No Annual Reports Filed Document Images 12/10/2020 -- Florida Limited Liability View image in PDF format D C Florida Department of State 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 518 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) Boundary Survey 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 519 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) 9.A.3.cPacket Pg. 520Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) Aerial, Future Land Use & Zoning Maps 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 521 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) Collier BlvdCollier BlvdR a t t l e s n a k e H a m m o c k R dRattlesnake H a m m o c k R d Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA,USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Subject Parcel 0 0.2 0.4 0.60.1 Miles ¯Carman Drive SubdistrictAerial Location Map 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 522 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) URF RFS UR UR UR MUA C URFCollier BlvdCollier BlvdR a t t l e s n a k e H a m m o c k R dRattlesnake H a m m o c k R d Carman Drive SubdistrictFuture Land Use MapExisting Subject Parcel Collier Blvd Community Facility Subdistrict Conservation Designation Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict RF-Sending Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict Urban Residential Subdistrict 0 0.3 0.6 0.90.15 Miles ¯ # 7 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 523 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) URF UR UR UR MUA C URF Collier BlvdCollier BlvdR a t t l e s n a k e H a m m o c k R dRattlesnake H a m m o c k R d Carman Drive SubdistrictFuture Land Use MapProposed00.2 0.4 0.60.1 Miles ¯Subject Parcel Carman Drive Subdistrict Collier Blvd Community Facility Subdistrict Conservation Designation Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict Urban Residential Subdistrict # 7 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 524 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) MPUD PUD A A PUD RPUD PUD MPUD PUD A A RPUD A CPUD MPUD C-4 C-4 A TTRVC PUD MPUD RPUD RSF-1 CFPUD Collier BlvdCollier BlvdR a t t l e s n a k e H a m m o c k R dRattlesnake H a m m o c k R d Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA,USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community A Carman Drive SubdistrictZoning MapExisting Subject Parcel 0 0.15 0.3 0.450.075 Miles ¯ 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 525 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) Statement of Utility Provisions 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 526 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercounty.gov (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 March 4, 2020 Page 6 of 11 STATEMENT OF UTILITY PROVISIONS FOR PUD REZONE REQUEST APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION Name of Applicant(s): _______________________________________________________________ Address: _________________________________ City: ___________ State: ________ ZIP: _______ Telephone: ____________________ Cell: _____________________ Fax: ______________________ E-Mail Address: ____________________________________________________________________ Address of Subject Property (If available): ______________________________________________ City: _________________ State: ________ ZIP: _________ PROPERTY INFORMATION Section/Township/Range: / / Lot: Block: Subdivision: ___________________________________________________ Metes & Bounds Description: _________________________________________________________ Plat Book: Page #: Property I.D. Number: ____________________________________ TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL TO BE PROVIDED Check applicable system: a.County Utility System b.City Utility System c.Franchised Utility System Provide Name: __________________________ d.Package Treatment Plant (GPD Capacity): _________________________ e.Septic System TYPE OF WATER SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED Check applicable system: a.County Utility System b.City Utility System c.Franchised Utility System Provide Name: __________________________ d.Private System (Well) Total Population to be Served: ________________________________________________________ Peak and Average Daily Demands: A. Water-Peak: _________ Average Daily: __________ B. Sewer-Peak: _________ Average Daily: __________ If proposing to be connected to Collier County Regional Water System, please provide the date service is expected to be required: ____________________________________________________ 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 527 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD)CARMAN DRIVE 15 LLC 7742 ALICO RD Fort Myers FL 33912 1-877-357-8271 x700 N/A N/A david@torrescompanies.com 8496 RATTLESNAKE HAMM RD Naples FL 34114 14 50 26 See Legal Description in PUD 00417000004 X Collier County Utilities X Collier County Utilities 530 people (212 units x 2.5 persons per unit = 530) 96,460 GPD 74,200 GPD 79,500 GPD 53,000 GPD First Quarter of 2023 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliercounty.gov (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 March 4, 2020 Page 7 of 11 Narrative statement: Provide a brief and concise narrative statement and schematic drawing of sewage treatment process to be used as well as a specific statement regarding the method of affluent and sludge disposal. If percolation ponds are to be used, then percolation data and soil involved shall be provided from tests prepared and certified by a professional engineer. __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ Collier County Utility Dedication Statement: If the project is located within the service boundaries of Collier County’s utility service system, a notarized statement shall be provided agreeing to dedicate the water distribution and sewage collection facilities within the project area to the Collier County Utilities. This shall occur upon completion of the construction of these facilities in accordance with all applicable County ordinances in effect at that time. This statement shall also include an agreement that the applicable system development charges and connection fees will be paid to the County Utilities Division prior to the issuance of building permits by the County. If applicable, the statement shall contain an agreement to dedicate the appropriate utility easements for serving the water and sewer systems. __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ Statement of Availability Capacity from other Providers: Unless waived or otherwise provided for at the pre-application meeting, if the project is to receive sewer or potable water services from any provider other than the County, a statement from that provider indicating adequate capacity to serve the project shall be provided. 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 528 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD)N/A So Noted Environmental Report 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 529 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) Project No. 20CDL3377 LOCAL GREENS COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL DATA REPORT May 2021 Prepared For: Carman Drive 15, LLC 7742 Alico Road Fort Myers, Florida 33912 (239) 208-4079 Prepared By: Passarella & Associates, Inc. 13620 Metropolis Avenue, Suite 200 Fort Myers, Florida 33912 (239) 274-0067 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 530 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction ....................................................................................................................................1 Environmental Data Authors .........................................................................................................1 Vegetation Descriptions .................................................................................................................1 Listed Species Survey ....................................................................................................................2 Native Vegetation Preservation .....................................................................................................3 References ......................................................................................................................................4 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 531 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) ii LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1. Historical Native and Non-Native Habitat Types and Acreages ........................... 3 Table 2. Off-Site Mitigation Parcel – Native and Non-Native Habitat Types and Acreages .......................................................................................................... 4 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 532 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) iii LIST OF EXHIBITS Page Exhibit 1. Project Location Map ......................................................................................... E1-1 Exhibit 2. Aerial with FLUCFCS and Wetlands Map ........................................................ E2-1 Exhibit 3. Listed Species Survey ........................................................................................ E3-1 Exhibit 4. Aerial with Boundary, Eagle Nest, and Buffer Zones ....................................... E4-1 Exhibit 5. 2016 FLUCFCS Map ......................................................................................... E5-1 Exhibit 6. Off-Site Mitigation Parcel Aerial with FLUCFCS and Wetlands Map ............. E6-1 Exhibit 7. Off-Site Mitigation Parcel Collier County Native Vegetation Map .................. E7-1 Exhibit 8. Off-Site Mitigation Parcel Regional Aerial with Off-Site Preservation Lands ............................................................................... E8-1 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 533 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) 1 INTRODUCTION The following environmental data (ED) report is provided in support of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) amendment for Local Greens (Project). The ED report was prepared in accordance with the Collier County ED submittal requirements outlined in Chapter 3.08.00 of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). The Project site is located in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County (Exhibit 1). More specifically, the Project is located approximately 0.3 mile northeast of the intersection of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and County Road (CR) 951 and is bordered to the north by the Sapphire Cove residential community, to the east by Florida Sports Park Road, to the south by the Watercrest Parcel, and to the west by a Florida Power and Light easement. The Project site is comprised of disturbed upland and wetland areas that contain high levels of cover by exotic vegeation including melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia), earleaf acacia (Acacia auriculiformis), and Peruvian primrose willow (Ludwigia peruviana). The following ED includes details regarding the authors of this report, vegetation descriptions for the various habitats on-site, results of the listed species survey, and the minimum native vegetation preservation requirement. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA AUTHORS This report was prepared by Brett Bartek and Bethany Brosious. They both satisfy the environmental credential and experience requirements, per Section 3.08.00(A)2 of the Collier County LDC. Mr. Bartek is an Ecologist with Passarella & Associates, Inc. (PAI), with two years of consulting experience in the environmental industry. He holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Interdisciplinary Studies from the University of West Florida and a Master of Arts degree in Biology from Miami University. Mrs. Brosious is a Senior Ecologist with PAI, with 15 years of consulting experience in the environmental industry. She holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Animal Sciences from the University of Florida and a Master of Science degree in Environmental Sciences from Florida Gulf Coast University. VEGETATION DESCRIPTIONS The existing land use includes disturbed land with varying degrees of exotic infestation. The vegetation associations for the property were delineated using December 2020 rectified color aerials (Scale: 1” = 100’) and groundtruthing was conducted on April 13, 2021. The delineation was classified based on the nomenclature of the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) Levels III and IV (Florida Department of 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 534 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) 2 Transportation 1999). Level IV FLUCFCS was utilized to denote disturbance, and “E” codes were used to identify levels of exotic species invasion (e.g., melaleuca, earleaf acacia, and Peruvian primrose willow). AutoCAD Map 3D 2021 software was used to determine the acreage of each mapped polygon, produce summaries, and generate the final FLUCFCS map (Exhibit 2). A total of two vegetative associations on-site (i.e., FLUCFCS codes) were identified on the property. The dominant habitat type on the property is Disturbed Land, Hydric (FLUCFCS Code 7401), accounting for 79.1 percent of the property (12.19± acres). Exotic vegetation documented on-site includes, but is not limited to, melaleuca, earleaf acacia, spermacoce (Spermacoce verticillata), and torpedograss (Panicum repens). The Project site is dominated by exotic vegetation and contains minimal cover by native vegetation species. The Project site contains 12.19± acres of South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) wetlands (Exhibit 2). The jurisdictional wetlands identified by FLUCFCS code include approximately 12.74 acres of Disturbed Land, Hydric (FLUCFCS Code 7401). The resulting acreage and a description for each FLUCFCS classification are outlined below. Disturbed Land (FLUCFCS Code 740) The canopy of this upland habitat type is dominated by earleaf acacia. The sub-canopy is primarily melaleuca and includes earleaf acacia with scattered saltbush (Baccharis halimifolia) and climbing senna (Senna pendula). The ground cover includes broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), caesarweed (Urena lobata), spermacoce, and swamp flatsedge (Cyperus ligularis). Disturbed Land, Hydric (FLUCFCS Code 7401) The canopy of this wetland habitat type is open. The sub-canopy is dominated by melaleuca and includes earleaf acacia, slash pine (Pinus elliottii), and Peruvian primrose willow. The ground cover includes broomsedge, torpedograss, swamp flatsedge, yellow-eyed grass (Xyris sp.), spermacoce, rosy camphorweed (Pluchea baccharis), spreading beaksedge (Rhynchospora divergens), Southern beaksedge (Rhynchospora microcarpa), and big head rush (Juncus megacephalus). LISTED SPECIES SURVEY A listed plant and wildlife species survey was conducted by PAI on the Project site on April 13, 2021. No listed wildlife or plant species were documented on the Project site during the field survey. The listed species survey methodology and results are provided as Exhibit 3. The western portion of the Project is located within 660 feet of Bald Eagle Nest CO-060. An aerial photograph depicting the location of the bald eagle nest and the 330-foot and 660-foot USFWS nest protection buffer zones is included as Exhibit 4. Prior to the initiation of construction activities, the developer will coordinate with Collier County and the USFWS regarding applicable guidelines and permitting requirements, as described in the USFWS National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (USFWS 2007). 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 535 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) 3 NATIVE VEGETATION PRESERVATION The proposed zoning amendment application includes the addition of a residential land use to the PUD. Per LDC Section 3.05.07.B.1, for a Residential or Mixed-Use Development, the minimum preserve requirement is 25 percent of the native vegetation. Site clearing activities were conducted by the previous landowner in 2017; therefore, the Collier County retained native preservation vegetation requirement was calculated based on the historical condition and vegetation mapping conducted prior to site clearing. A FLUCFCS and wetlands map was prepared by EarthTech Environmental in 2016, prior to site clearing. A copy of the 2016 FLUCFCS map is attached as Exhibit 5. Per the historical map, the Project was comprised mainly of melaleuca wetlands with scattered native upland areas. Based on the historical mapping, the Project site contained 0.96± acre of native vegetation. The native vegetation areas were comprised of small islands of pine flatwoods habitat and were scattered throughout the on-site melaleuca wetlands. The abundance of melaleuca on-site was typical of the geographic area and consistent with the cover of exotic vegetation present on surrounding parcels. Table 1 provides a summary of the historical native vegetation communities on-site and the native vegetation preservation calculation. Table 1. Historical Native and Non-Native Habitat Types and Acreages FLUCFCS Code Description Native Vegetation Acreage Non-Native Vegetation Acreage 4119 E2 Pine Flatwood, Disturbed (25-49% Exotics) 0.96 - 4241 Melaleuca, Hydric - 14.23 8146H Primitive Trail, Hydric - 0.24 Total 0.96 14.47 Minimum Retained Native Vegetation Requirement for Residential or Mixed-Use Development (Native Vegetation Acreage, 0.96± Acre x 25 Percent) 0.24 For a Residential or Mixed-Use Development, a 0.24± acre preserve will be required (i.e., 0.96± acre of historical native vegetation x 25 percent = 0.24± acre of required native vegetation preserve. In accordance with Section 3.05.07 H.1.f, due to the small size of the required native vegetation preserve (i.e., less than 0.5± acre), lack of native vegetation on-site and isolation from larger, regionally significant preserve lands, the designation of an off-site native vegetation preserve is proposed to satisfy the native vegetation preservation requirement for the Project and will provide a greater ecological and regional benefit than the creation of a small, isolated native vegetation preserve on-site. 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 536 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) 4 The minimum native vegetation preservation requirement will be satisfied through the preservation, enhancement, and donation of a 25.82± acre Off-Site Mitigation Parcel. The parcel consists mainly of forested wetland areas. An aerial with FLUFCS and wetlands map of the Off- Site Mitigation Parcel is provided as Exhibit 6. The parcel is comprised of 25.78± acres of native vegetation (Exhibit 7) and provides a contiguous connection to the Picayune Strand State Forrest (Exhibit 8). Table 2 provides a summary of the native vegetation communities for the Off-Site Mitigation Parcel and the native vegetation preservation calculation. Table 2. Off-Site Mitigation Parcel – Native and Non-Native Habitat Types and Acreages FLUCFCS Code Description Native Vegetation Acreage Non-Native Vegetation Acreage 3219 E1 Palmetto Prairie, Disturbed (0-24% Exotics) 0.13 - 6249 E2 Cypress/Pine/Cabbage Palm, Disturbed (25-49% Exotics) 7.63 - 6249 E3 Cypress/Pine/Cabbage Palm, Disturbed (50-75% Exotics) 18.02 - 7401 Disturbed Land, Hydric - 0.17 Total 25.78 0.17 The parcel provides 25.78± acres of Collier County native vegetation, which exceeds the 0.24± acre native vegetation preservation requirement for the Project. In addition, preservation of the parcel will protect and preserve wetland habitat and habitat for endangered and threated species including, but not limited to, Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi), wood stork (Mycteria americana), red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi), and Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus). The parcel will be enhanced through the removal of exotic vegetation and protected in perpetuity via a conservation easement granted to the SFWMD and Collier County. REFERENCES Florida Department of Transportation. 1999. Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System. Procedure No. 550-010-001-a. Second Edition. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 537 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) EXHIBIT 1 PROJECT LOCATION MAP 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 538 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) REVIEWED BY DRAW N BY REVISED DATE DATE DATECCHHAARRLLEEMMAAGGNNEEBBLLVVDD WHITAKER RDWHITAKER RD LLAAKKEE WW OOOODDBBLLVVDDAA LLBBIIRRDD VVEERROONNAAWWAALL KK CCII RRMANATEE RDMANATEE RDOOUUTTEERR DDRR ALLEYALLEYII VV YY DDRR TTRREEVV IISSOO BBAAYYBBLLVV DDBAYSHORE DRBAYSHORE DRGAIL BLVDGAIL BLVD COUNTY BARN RDCOUNTY BARN RDCOPE LNCOPE LN CREWS RDCREWS RD EVERLY AVEEVERLY AVE 31ST AVE SW31ST AVE SW 27TH AVE SW27TH AVE SW 66TH ST SW66TH ST SW29TH AVE SW29TH AVE SW 68TH ST SW68TH ST SW70TH ST SW70TH ST SW25TH AVE SW25TH AVE SW PALM DRPALM DRLE BUFFS RDLE BUFFS RD4444TTHHSST T SSWWBENFIELD RDBENFIELD RDNN OORRTTHH RRDD GARLAND RDGARLAND RDINEZ RDINEZ RDMARKLEY AVEMARKLEY AVE FLO RIDAN AVE FLORIDAN AVE GREENWAY RDGREENWAY RDKKIINNGGSSWWAAYYBECK BLVDBECK BLVD 32ND AVE SW32ND AVE SW NNAAPPLLEESSHH EERRIITTAA GGEEDDRR ESTEY AVEESTEY AVE COLLIER BLVD (SR 951)COLLIER BLVD (SR 951)CCEERRRROOMMAARR DDRRWWIILLDDFFLLOOWWEERR WW AA YY LLEELLYYRREESSOORRTTBBLLVVDDCCEELLEESSTTEEDDRRGGLLEENNEEAAGGLLEEBB LLVVDDAIRPORT PULLING RD SAIRPORT PULLING RD STTHHOOMMAASSSSOONN DDRRGGRREEYY OOAAKKSS DDRRSSBB AA RR EE FF OO OOTTWWI I LLLLI I AAMMSSRRDDLLIIVVIINNGGSSTTOONNRRDDGGRRAANNDDLL EE LLYYDDRRAAIIRRPPOORRTTPPUULLLLIINNGGRRDDNN SMITH RDSMITH RDSSAAIINNTT AA NN DD RR EEWWSSBBLL VVDDWWHHIITTEELLAAKKEE BBLLVVDD KKIINNGGSS LLAAKKEEBBLLVVDDBLACKBURN RDBLACKBURN RD SANTA BARBARA BLVDSANTA BARBARA BLVDRRAATTTTLLEESSNNAAKKEE HHAAMMMMOOCCKK RRDD RRAADDIIOO RRDD GGOOLLDDEENN GGAATT EE PPKKWW YYDAVIS BLVDDAVIS BLVD COLLIER BLVD (CR 951)COLLIER BLVD (CR 951)SABAL PALM RDSABAL PALM RD (/41 ;3EXIT101 ;3EXIT105 §¨¦75 Gulf of Mexico SNAKERDALICO RD OIL WELL RDCORKSCREWRD EVERGLADES BLVD¿À892 ¿À849 ¿À951 ¿À94 ¿À858 ¿À82 ¿À850 ¿À837 ¿À835 ¿À839 ¿À833 ¿À846 ¿À29 (/41 §¨¦75 C O L L I E RCOLLIER H E N D R YHENDRYLEELEE M O N R O EMONROE ^^^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^ ^ ^^ ^ ^ MIAMI TAMPA NAPLES ORLANDO KEY WEST SARASOTA PENSACOLA FORT MYERS VE RO BEACH LAKE PLACID PANAMA C ITY GAINESVILLE TALLAHASSEE JACKSONVILLE DAYTONA BEACH FORT LAUDERDALE¶ PROJECT LOCATIONSEC 14, TWP 50 S, R NG 26 E EXHIBIT 1. PROJECT LO CATION M AP R.F. B.B. 04/28/21 04/28/21LOCAL G REE NS OFF -SITE MITI GATI ONPARCEL 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 539 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) EXHIBIT 2 AERIAL WITH FLUCFCS AND WETLANDS MAP 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 540 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) P/L~FLORIDA SPORTS PARK RD~7401(12.11 Ac.±)740(0.40 Ac.±)740(0.94 Ac.±)740(1.62 Ac.±)740(0.26 Ac.±)7401(0.08 Ac.±)J:\2020\20cdl3377\2021\Environmental Data Report\Exhibit 2 Aerial with FLUCFCS and Wetlands Map 042721.dwg Tab: Exhibit 2 Apr 30, 2021 - 12:34pm Plotted by: PaulF DRAWN BYREVIEWED BYREVISEDP.F., R.F.B.B.04/27/21DATEDATE04/27/21DATEEXHIBIT 2. AERIAL WITH FLUCFCS AND WETLANDS MAPLOCAL GREENSSCALE: 1" = 200'NOTES:AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED THROUGHTHE COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'SOFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE OF DECEMBER 2020.PROPERTY BOUNDARY ESTIMATED FROM THE COLLIERCOUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S GIS WEBSITE.FLUCFCS LINES ESTIMATED FROM 1"=200' AERIALPHOTOGRAPHS AND LOCATIONS APPROXIMATED.FLUCFCS PER FLORIDA LAND USE, COVER AND FORMSCLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (FLUCFCS) (FDOT 1999).WETLAND LINES HAVE NOT BEEN SURVEY LOCATEDAND HAVE NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY ANY AGENCY.LEGEND:SFWMD WETLANDS(12.19 Ac.±)9.A.3.cPacket Pg. 541Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman EXHIBIT 3 LISTED SPECIES SURVEY 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 542 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) E3-1 LOCAL GREENS LISTED SPECIES SURVEY April 2021 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report documents the results of the listed species survey conducted by Passarella & Associates, Inc. (PAI) on April 13, 2021 for the 15.41± acre Local Greens (Project). The Project site is located in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County (Appendix A). More specifically, the Project site is located approximately 0.3 mile northeast of the intersection of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard (County Road (CR) 951). The Project site is bordered to the north by the Sapphire Cove residential community, to the south by the Watercrest Parcel, to the east by Florida Sports Park Road, and to the west by a Florida Power and Light easement. The Project site is comprised of undeveloped, forested and non-forested upland and wetland areas. 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW AND FIELD SURVEY METHODOLOGY A literature review and field survey were conducted to determine whether the Project site was being utilized by state and/or federally listed species as identified by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). In addition, the property was surveyed for plant species listed by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and the USFWS as endangered, threatened, or commercially exploited or species included on the Collier County Rare and Less Rare plant lists (Land Development Code (LDC) Section 3.04.03). 2.1 Literature Review The literature review involved an examination of available information on listed species in the geographical region of the Project. The literature sources reviewed included the FWCC Florida’s Endangered and Threatened Species (2018); Florida Atlas of Breeding Sites for Herons and Their Allies (Runde et al. 1991); USFWS Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in the Southeast Region (1987); the Florida Panther Habitat Preservation Plan (Logan et al. 1993); the Landscape Conservation Strategy Map (Kautz et al. 2006); and USFWS and FWCC databases for telemetry locations of the Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) (RCW), Florida scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens), and wading bird rookeries (such as wood stork (Mycteria americana)) in Collier County. FWCC and USFWS database information is updated on a periodic basis and is current through different dates, depending on the species. The data is current through the noted dates: bald eagle nest locations – 2020; panther telemetry – June 2020; and RCW locations – December 2020. 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 543 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) E3-2 2.2 Field Survey The field survey was conducted during daylight hours by qualified ecologists walking parallel belt transects across the Project site. Transects were spaced to ensure that sufficient visual coverage of ground and flora was obtained. Approximate transect locations and spacing are shown on Appendix B. At regular intervals the ecologists stopped, remained quiet, and listened for wildlife vocalizations. The survey was conducted with the aid of 8x or 10x power binoculars. The listed wildlife species surveyed for included, but were not limited to, the gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus), Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi), RCW, wood stork, Big Cypress fox squirrel (Sciurus niger avicennia), and Florida panther. The listed plant species surveyed for included species typical to forested upland and wetland habitats in this geographical region, as well as listed epiphytes and terrestrial orchids common in Southwest Florida. 3.0 RESULTS 3.1 Literature Review According to FWCC and Audubon Eaglewatch databases, the closest documented bald eagle nest is CO-060 located approximately 620 feet west of the western Project limits (Appendixs C and D). The nest distance is within the the USFWS and the FWCC recommended 660-foot buffer zone for active and alternate bald eagle nests. Bald eagles are not a state or federally listed species; however, they are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The Project site is located within the USFWS consultation for RCWs (Appendix E); however, no RCW locations are documented on the Project site (Appendix C), and the Project site does not contain suitable habitat for the RCW. The closest documented RCW location is located approximately 0.5 mile west of the Project site. This location, along with the others documented west of Collier Boulevard (CR 951), is considered a relic or historic location. The RCW is a state and federally listed endangered species. The Project site is located within the 30± kilometer (18.6± miles) Core Foraging Area (CFA) of one documented wood stork rookery (No. 619018) (Appendix F). The wetlands within the proposed development limits are infested with exotic vegetation including torpedograss (Panicum repens), spermacoce (Spermacoce sp.), melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia), and earleaf acacia (Acacia auriculiformis); and they offer poor quality foraging habitat for wood storks. The wood stork is a state and federally listed threatened species. Two Florida panther telemetry points are located on the Project site, with additional telemetry points located in the vicinity (Appendix C). The on-site telemetry points were from Florida Panther No. 219 (FP 219) and were recorded in November and December 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 544 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) E3-3 2013. FP 219 died in September 2015, and no additional telemetry has been recorded on- site. The property is within the Florida Panther Primary Zone (Kautz et al. 2006) (Appendix G). The Florida panther is a state and federally listed endangered species. The Project site is located within the USFWS Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus) (FBB) consultation area and proposed critical habitat area (Appendix H). The Project site contains potential FBB roosting and foraging habitat. The Florida bonneted bat is a state and federally listed endangered species. 3.2 Field Survey The field survey was conducted on April 13, 2021. Weather conditions during the survey were partly cloudy skies, five to ten miles per hour easterly winds, and temperatures in the upper 70s. The field survey documented no listed wildlife or plant species on the Project site. Appendix B shows the location of the transects traversed during the survey. 4.0 SUMMARY The literature search and review of agency databases found two Florida panther telemetry points within the Project limits. The telemetry points are from FP 219 and were recorded in November and December 2013. FP 219 died in September 2015, and no additional telemetry has been documented on-site. No other documented occurrences for listed species were found on the Project site during the literature review. The Project site is located within the USFWS and the FWCC recommended 660-foot buffer zone for Bald Eagle Nest CO-060. The Project site is located within the CFA for one documented wood stork colony and within the RCW consultation area. In addition, the Project site is located within the Primary Zone for Florida panthers and within the consultation area and proposed critical habitat area for Florida bonneted bats. The field survey conducted on the property, documented no listed species within the Project limits. 5.0 REFERENCES Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2018. Florida’s Endangered and Threatened Species. Official Lists, Bureau of Non-Game Wildlife, Division of Wildlife. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Tallahassee, Florida. Kautz, R., R. Kawula, T. Hoctor, J. Comiskey, D. Jansen, D. Jennings, J. Kasbohm, F. Mazzotti, R. McBride, L. Richardson, K. Root. 2006. How much is enough? Landscape-scale conservation for the Florida panther. Biological Conservation, Volume 130, Issue 1, Pages 118-133 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 545 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) E3-4 Logan, Todd, Andrew C. Eller, Jr., Ross Morrell, Donna Ruffner, and Jim Sewell. 1993. Florida Panther Habitat Preservation Plan South Florida Population. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Gainesville, Florida. Runde, D.E., J.A. Gore, J.A. Hovis, M.S. Robson, and P.D. Southall. 1991. Florida Atlas of Breeding Sites for Herons and Their Allies, Update 1986 - 1989. Nongame Wildlife Program Technical Report No. 10. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, Florida. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in the Southeast Region. 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 546 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) APPENDIX A PROJECT LOCATION MAP 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 547 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) REVIEWED BY DRAW N BY REVISED DATE DATE DATECCHHAARRLLEEMMAAGGNNEEBBLLVVDD WHITAKER RDWHITAKER RD LLAAKKEE WW OOOODDBBLLVVDDAA LLBBIIRRDD VVEERROONNAAWWAALL KK CCII RRMANATEE RDMANATEE RDOOUUTTEERR DDRR ALLEYALLEYII VV YY DDRR TTRREEVV IISSOO BBAAYYBBLLVV DDBAYSHORE DRBAYSHORE DRGAIL BLVDGAIL BLVD COUNTY BARN RDCOUNTY BARN RDCOPE LNCOPE LN CREWS RDCREWS RD EVERLY AVEEVERLY AVE 31ST AVE SW31ST AVE SW 27TH AVE SW27TH AVE SW 66TH ST SW66TH ST SW29TH AVE SW29TH AVE SW 68TH ST SW68TH ST SW70TH ST SW70TH ST SW25TH AVE SW25TH AVE SW PALM DRPALM DRLE BUFFS RDLE BUFFS RD4444TTHHSST T SSWWBENFIELD RDBENFIELD RDNN OORRTTHH RRDD GARLAND RDGARLAND RDINEZ RDINEZ RDMARKLEY AVEMARKLEY AVE FLO RIDAN AVE FLORIDAN AVE GREENWAY RDGREENWAY RDKKIINNGGSSWWAAYYBECK BLVDBECK BLVD 32ND AVE SW32ND AVE SW NNAAPPLLEESSHH EERRIITTAA GGEEDDRR ESTEY AVEESTEY AVE COLLIER BLVD (SR 951)COLLIER BLVD (SR 951)CCEERRRROOMMAARR DDRRWWIILLDDFFLLOOWWEERR WW AA YY LLEELLYYRREESSOORRTTBBLLVVDDCCEELLEESSTTEEDDRRGGLLEENNEEAAGGLLEEBB LLVVDDAIRPORT PULLING RD SAIRPORT PULLING RD STTHHOOMMAASSSSOONN DDRRGGRREEYY OOAAKKSS DDRRSSBB AA RR EE FF OO OOTTWWI I LLLLI I AAMMSSRRDDLLIIVVIINNGGSSTTOONNRRDDGGRRAANNDDLL EE LLYYDDRRAAIIRRPPOORRTTPPUULLLLIINNGGRRDDNN SMITH RDSMITH RDSSAAIINNTT AA NN DD RR EEWWSSBBLL VVDDWWHHIITTEELLAAKKEE BBLLVVDD KKIINNGGSS LLAAKKEEBBLLVVDDBLACKBURN RDBLACKBURN RD SANTA BARBARA BLVDSANTA BARBARA BLVDRRAATTTTLLEESSNNAAKKEE HHAAMMMMOOCCKK RRDD RRAADDIIOO RRDD GGOOLLDDEENN GGAATT EE PPKKWW YYDAVIS BLVDDAVIS BLVD COLLIER BLVD (CR 951)COLLIER BLVD (CR 951)SABAL PALM RDSABAL PALM RD (/41 ;3EXIT101 ;3EXIT105 §¨¦75 Gulf of Mexico SNAKERDALICO RD OIL WELL RDCORKSCREWRD EVERGLADES BLVD¿À892 ¿À849 ¿À951 ¿À94 ¿À858 ¿À82 ¿À850 ¿À837 ¿À835 ¿À839 ¿À833 ¿À846 ¿À29 (/41 §¨¦75 C O L L I E RCOLLIER H E N D R YHENDRYLEELEE M O N R O EMONROE ^^^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^ ^ ^^ ^ ^ MIAMI TAMPA NAPLES ORLANDO KEY WEST SARASOTA PENSACOLA FORT MYERS VE RO BEACH LAKE PLACID PANAMA C ITY GAINESVILLE TALLAHASSEE JACKSONVILLE DAYTONA BEACH FORT LAUDERDALE¶ PROJECT LOCATIONSEC 14, TWP 50 S, R NG 26 E APPEND IX A. PRO JE CT LOCATIO N MAP P.F. R.F. 4/12/21 4/12/21LOCAL G REE NS 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 548 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) APPENDIX B AERIAL WITH SURVEY TRANSECTS 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 549 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) P/L~FLORIDA SPORTS PARK RD~ J:\2020\20cdl3377\2021\On-Site LSS\Appendix B Aerial with Survey Transects.dwg Tab: 17X11-C Apr 29, 2021 - 11:25am Plotted by: PaulFP.F.R.F.B.B.REVISIONS4/13/214/13/21DATEDATE4/13/21DATEDRAWING No.SHEET No.20CDL3377DATE13620 Metropolis AvenueSuite 200Ft. Myers, FL 33912Phone (239) 274-0067Fax (239) 274-0069DRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVIEWED BYLOCAL GREENSAERIAL WITH SURVEY TRANSECTSSCALE: 1" = 100'APPENDIX BNOTES:AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED THROUGHTHE COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'SOFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE OF DECEMBER 2020.PROPERTY BOUNDARY ESTIMATED FROM THE COLLIERCOUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S GIS WEBSITE.LEGEND:APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF WALKEDTRANSECTS9.A.3.cPacket Pg. 550Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) APPENDIX C DOCUMENTED OCCURRENCES OF LISTED SPECIES 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 551 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) DRAW N BY REVI EWED B Y REVI SED DA TE DA TE DA TE LEGEND A !( !H 0 1 2Miles ¶ APPEND IX C. DOC UM ENTE D OCC URRE NCES OF LISTE D SP ECIE S P.F . R.F. 4/12/21 4/12/21LOCAL G REE NS !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !F !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H!H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H l l A A A A A A A A A AA A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A BEC K BLVDLIVINGSTON RDCOUNTY BARN RDLAKEW OOD BLVDSANTA BARBARA BLVDGO L D E N G ATE PK W Y R ATTLE SNAKE HAM M OCK R ADIO RD D A V IS B L VD ¿À951 (/41 §¨¦75 C O L L I E RCOLLIER PROJECT LOCATION 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 552 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman APPENDIX D AERIAL WITH BOUNDARY AND EAGLE NEST 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 553 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) P/L~FLORIDA SPORTS PARK RD~~RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK RD~~COLLIER BLVD~J:\2020\20cdl3377\2021\On-Site LSS\Appendix D Aerial with Boundary and Eagle Nest.dwg Tab: 17X11-C Apr 29, 2021 - 11:26am Plotted by: PaulFP.F.R.F.B.B.REVISIONS4/13/214/13/21DATEDATE4/13/21DATEDRAWING No.SHEET No.20CDL3377DATE13620 Metropolis AvenueSuite 200Ft. Myers, FL 33912Phone (239) 274-0067Fax (239) 274-0069DRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVIEWED BYLOCAL GREENSAERIAL WITH BOUNDARY AND EAGLE NESTSCALE: 1" = 300'APPENDIX DNOTES:AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED THROUGHTHE COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'SOFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE OF DECEMBER 2020.PROPERTY BOUNDARY ESTIMATED FROM THE COLLIERCOUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S GIS WEBSITE.LEGEND:330' RADIUS660' RADIUSEAGLE NEST CO-0609.A.3.cPacket Pg. 554Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) APPENDIX E RCW CONSULTATION AREA WITH LOCATIONS 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 555 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H!H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H!H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H GulfofMexico (/41 C O L L I E RCOLLIER L E ELEE §¨¦75 REVISED DATE REVIEWED BY DRAW N BY DATE DATEAPPENDIX E. R CW CO NSUL TATIO N ARE A WITH LOCATION S R.F. B.B. 04/27/21 04/27/21LOCAL G REE NS PROJECT LOCATION 0 1 2 3Miles ¶ LEGEND !H 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 556 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) APPENDIX F FLORIDA WOOD STORK NESTING COLONIES AND 18.6 MILE CORE FORAGING AREAS 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 557 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) DR AW N B Y REV IE WE D BY REV IS ED DATE DATE DATE kj kj Gul f of Mexico RIDGEDRLI VI NGSTONRDLOGAN BLVDTERRY S T CRAYTONRDR A D IO R DVANDERBILT DRO I L WE L L G R A D E R D CAMP KEAIS RDTHREEOAKSPKWYD A V I S BLVDPINE RI D G E RDOLD US 41E S T E R OBLVD G OLDE N G A TE PKW YGOODLETTE FRANK RDB O NIT A B E ACH R D V ANDE R BI LT BE ACH R D AIRPORT-PULLING RDGO L D E N G A TE B LV D OI L W E L L R D C O R K SC R E W R D EVERGLADES BLVD¿À849 ¿À850 ¿À29 ¿À951 ¿À846 (/41 §¨¦75 C O L L I E RCOLLIER L E ELEE 0 2 4 6Miles ¶ LEGEND kj APPEND IX F. FLORIDA W OO D STORK NES TING CO LO NIES P.F. R.F . 4/12/2 1 4/12/2 1LOCAL G REE NS PRO JECT LOCATI ON AND 18.6 M ILE CO RE FO RAG IN G ARE AS 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 558 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman APPENDIX G PANTHER ZONES WITH PANTHER FOCUS AREA 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 559 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) Gulf of MexicoOAKS BLVDRIDGEDRLI VI NGSTONRDBARFIELD DRLOGAN BLVDTERRY ST CRAYTONRDSANTA BARBARA BLVDRADIO RD CAMP KEAIS RDVANDERBILT DROI L WE L L GR A D E R D BONIT A BE ACH R D OLD US 41DAVIS BLVD PINE RIDGE RD GOODLETTE FRANK RDVANDERBILTBEACH RD AIRPORT-PULLING RDGOLDEN GATE BLVD SAN MARCO DROI L W ELL R D EVERGLADES BLVD¿À858 ¿À892 ¿À837 ¿À951 ¿À29 ¿À846 (/41 §¨¦75 C O L L I E RCOLLIER L E ELEE REVIEWED B Y DRAW N BY REVISED DATE DATE DATE APPEND IX G. PA NTHER ZO NES WITH PANTH E R FOC US ARE A P.F. R.F. 4/12/21 4/12/21LOCAL GREENS 0 1 2 3Miles ¶ LEG END PROJECT LOCATION 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 560 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) APPENDIX H FLORIDA BONNETED BAT CONSULTATION AREA AND PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT MAP 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 561 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) Gulf of MexicoRIDGEDRLIVINGSTONRDBARFIELDDRLOGAN BLVDTERRY ST CRAYTONRDSANTA BARBARA BLVDRADIO RD CAMP KEAIS RDVANDERBILT DROI L WE L L GR A D E R D BONIT A BE ACH R D OLD US 41DAVIS BLVD PINE RIDGE RD GOLDEN GATE P KW Y GOODLETTE FRANK RDVANDERBILT BEACH RD AIRPORT-PULLING RDGOLDEN GATE BLVD SAN MARCO DROIL W ELL RD EVERGLADES BLVD¿À858 ¿À892 ¿À837 ¿À951 ¿À29 ¿À846 (/41 §¨¦75 C O L L I E RCOLLIERLEELEE REVISED DATE REVIEWED BY DRAW N BY DATE DATEAPPENDIX H. FLORIDA B O NNETE D B AT CO NSULTA TIO N A REA AN D PRO POSED C RITIC AL HA BITAT M AP P.F. R.F. 4/12/21 4/12/21LOCAL G REE NS PROJECT LOCATION 0 1 2 3Miles ¶ LEGEND 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 562 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) EXHIBIT 4 AERIAL WITH BOUNDARY, EAGLE NEST, AND BUFFER ZONES 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 563 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) P/L~FLORIDA SPORTS PARK RD~~RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK RD~~COLLIER BLVD~J:\2020\20cdl3377\2021\Environmental Data Report\Exhibit 4 Aerial with Boundary Eagle Nest and Buffer Zones.dwg Tab: 17X11-C Apr 30, 2021 - 12:34pm Plotted by: PaulFP.F.R.F.B.B.REVISIONS4/13/214/13/21DATEDATE4/13/21DATEDRAWING No.SHEET No.20CDL3377DATE13620 Metropolis AvenueSuite 200Ft. Myers, FL 33912Phone (239) 274-0067Fax (239) 274-0069DRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVIEWED BYLOCAL GREENSAERIAL WITH BOUNDARY, EAGLE NEST, AND BUFFER ZONESSCALE: 1" = 300'EXHIBIT 4NOTES:AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED THROUGHTHE COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'SOFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE OF DECEMBER 2020.PROPERTY BOUNDARY ESTIMATED FROM THE COLLIERCOUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S GIS WEBSITE.LEGEND:330' RADIUS660' RADIUSEAGLE NEST CO-0609.A.3.cPacket Pg. 564Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) EXHIBIT 5 2016 FLUCFCS MAP 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 565 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) Page 4 of 9 PROTECTED SPECIES SURVEY Figure 2. Aerial with FLUCCS Mapping. 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 566 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) EXHIBIT 6 OFF-SITE MITIGATION PARCEL AERIAL WITH FLUCFCS AND WETLANDS MAP 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 567 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) 7401(0.17 Ac.±)6249E3(0.53 Ac.±)6249E2(1.37 Ac.±)3219E1(0.13 Ac.±)6249E2(3.93 Ac.±)6249E2(0.71 Ac.±)6249E3(17.49 Ac.±)6249E2(0.96 Ac.±)APPROXIMATEP/L6249E2(0.66 Ac.±)J:\2020\20cdl3377\2021\Environmental Data Report\Exhibit 6 Offsite Mitigation Parcel Aerial with FLUCFCS and Wetlands Map 042921.dwg Tab: 17X11-C Apr 30, 2021 - 12:35pm Plotted by: PaulFR.F.C.C.B.B.REVISIONS01/14/2101/14/21DATEDATE01/14/21DATEDRAWING No.SHEET No.20CDL3377DATE13620 Metropolis AvenueSuite 200Ft. Myers, FL 33912Phone (239) 274-0067Fax (239) 274-0069DRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVIEWED BYLOCAL GREENS OFF-SITE MITIGATION PARCELAERIAL WITH FLUCFCS AND WETLANDS MAPSCALE: 1" = 200'EXHIBIT 6NOTES:AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED THROUGH THECOLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE WITHFLIGHT DATES OF NOVEMBER - DECEMBER 2019.FLUCFCS LINES ESTIMATED FROM 1"=200' AERIALPHOTOGRAPHS AND LOCATIONS APPROXIMATED.FLUCFCS PER FLORIDA LAND USE, COVER AND FORMSCLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (FLUCFCS) (FDOT 1999).UPLAND/WETLAND LIMITS HAVE NOT BEEN REVIEWED BYANY REGULATORY AGENCY AND ARE SUBJECT TOCHANGE.PROPERTY BOUNDARY ESTIMATED FROM THE COLLIERCOUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S GIS WEBSITE.LEGEND:SFWMD WETLANDS(25.82 Ac.±)9.A.3.cPacket Pg. 568Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) EXHIBIT 7 OFF-SITE MITIGATION PARCEL COLLIER COUNTY NATIVE VEGETATION MAP 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 569 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) 7401(0.17 Ac.±)6249E3(0.53 Ac.±)6249E2(1.37 Ac.±)3219E1(0.13 Ac.±)6249E2(3.93 Ac.±)6249E2(0.71 Ac.±)6249E3(17.49 Ac.±)6249E2(0.96 Ac.±)APPROXIMATEP/L6249E2(0.66 Ac.±)J:\2020\20cdl3377\2021\Environmental Data Report\Exhibit 7 Offsite Collier County Native Vegetation Map.dwg Tab: 17X11-C Apr 30, 2021 - 12:36pm Plotted by: PaulFR.F.B.B.B.B.REVISIONS04/28/2104/28/21DATEDATE04/28/21DATEDRAWING No.SHEET No.20CDL3377DATE13620 Metropolis AvenueSuite 200Ft. Myers, FL 33912Phone (239) 274-0067Fax (239) 274-0069DRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVIEWED BYLOCAL GREENS OFF-SITE MITIGATION PARCELCOLLIER COUNTY NATIVE VEGETATION MAPSCALE: 1" = 200'EXHIBIT 7NOTES:FLUCFCS LINES ESTIMATED FROM 1"=200' AERIALPHOTOGRAPHS AND LOCATIONS APPROXIMATED.FLUCFCS PER FLORIDA LAND USE, COVER AND FORMSCLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (FLUCFCS) (FDOT 1999).UPLAND/WETLAND LIMITS HAVE NOT BEEN REVIEWED BYANY REGULATORY AGENCY AND ARE SUBJECT TOCHANGE.PROPERTY BOUNDARY ESTIMATED FROM THE COLLIERCOUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S GIS WEBSITE.LEGEND:SFWMD WETLANDS(25.82 Ac.±)COLLIER COUNTY NATIVEVEGETATION (25.78 Ac.±)9.A.3.cPacket Pg. 570Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) EXHIBIT 8 OFF-SITE MITIGATION PARCEL REGIONAL AERIAL WITH OFF-SITE PRESERVATION LANDS 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 571 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) DAVIS BLVDDAVIS BLVD BECK BLVDBECK BLVD ¿À951 §¨¦75 13620 Metropolis AvenueSuite 200Fort Myers, Florida 33912Phone (239) 274-0067Fax (239) 274-0069 DR AW IN G N o. SHE ET N o. REV ISION S DR AW N BYDATE DESIGN ED B Y REV IEW ED BY DA TE DA TE DA TE LOC AL GR EENS OFF-S ITE MIT IG ATION PARCELREGIONAL AER IA L W ITH OFF-SITE PRE SE RVATION LA NDS R.F.B.B. B.B. 4/29/21 4/29/21 4/29/21 20CDL3377 EXHIBIT 8 0 2,00 0 4,00 0Feet ¶ LEGEND LOCAL GR EE NS LOCAL GREENS OFF-SITE MITIGATION PARCEL P I C AY U N E S T R A N DPICAYUNE S T R A N DSTATE F O R E S TSTATE F O R E S T 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 572 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) 1 Rejected Review: Environmental Review Reviewed By: Craig Brown Email: Craig.Brown@colliercountyfl.gov Phone #: (239) 252-2548 Correction Comment 2: Provide the following Environmental Data (LDC 3.08.00): The property has been cleared, were permits issued or a violation case for the property? The FLUCFCS Exhibit 2 indicates there are wetlands (12.19 acres) please explain what the mitigation for the impacts to the wetlands will be? Response The Project site was cleared of vegetation in 2017, by the previous landowner, and fill was deposited on the eastern portion of the site resulting in the issuance of a Cease and Desist letter by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) on August 1, 2017 and a notice of violation from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) on August 8, 2017. In coordination with the previous property owner, SFWMD staff issued Consent Order No. 2019-067-CO-ERP on November 7, 2019. As required by the Consent Order, the respondent is required to obtain an environmental resource permit (ERP) from the SFWMD and provide wetland mitigation in the amount of 3.28 credits. Similarly, the COE determined that 3.28 wetland mitigation credits will be required for the Project. The applicant purchased the propety in December 2020 and is currently in coordination with both the SFWMD and the COE to obtain environmental permits for the Project (SFWMD Application No. 210623-6603 and COE Application No. SAJ-2017-02183). Compensation for wetland impacts and fulfillment of the 3.28 wetland mitigation credit requirement will be provided through the preservation and enhancement of a 25.95± acre Off-Site Mitigation Parcel. The Parcel is located within the limits of the Belle Meade Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA), an area of Collier County targeted for acquisition and protection by the state. The enhancement and preservation of the Off-Site Mitigation Parcel and its connectivity to the Picayune Strand State Forest will benefit the wildlife species known to utilize the area and will function as a corridor for wildlife movement. The proposed Off-Site Mitigation Parcel will be of greater regional ecological value and will also provide greater long-term value than additional preservation efforts of the degraded on-site wetlands. Correction Comment 3: Please clarify, the Development Commitments (Exhibit F) indicates the preserve requirement will be satisfied offsite, however the environmental data indicates 25.78 acres is to be preserved? .24 acres is all that the LDC requires. Is the 25.78 acres to be donated to Conservation Collier and have they been contacted regarding a proposed land donation? Please clarify. How was 25.82 acres derived? 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 573 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) 2 Response In accordance with Section 3.05.07.H.1.f.vi.b, off-site land donations provided at a 4:1 ratio may be utilized to satisfy the native vegetation preservation requirement. As determined by the native vegetation present on the Project site prior to clearing, the Collier County native vegetation preservation requirement totals 0.24± acre and the utilization of off-site lands at a 4:1 ratio would result in the requirement of a 0.96± acre off-site land donation (i.e., 0.24 acre x 4 = 0.96 acre). Compensation for SFWMD and COE wetland impacts will be provided through the preservation and enhancement of a 25.95± acre Off-Site Mitigation Parcel. The Parcel is located within the limits of the Belle Meade NRPA, an area of Collier County targeted for acquisition and protection by the state, is surrounded by other state owned lands, provides habitat for listed species, and also provides a corridor for wildlife movement through the Picayune Strand State Forest. The Off-Site Mitigation Parcel is comprised of 25.78± acres of native vegetation and therefore exceeds the 0.96± acre off-site native vegetation preservation requirement. The Off-Site Mitigation Parcel will be enhanced through the removal of exotic vegetation, preserved in perpetuity, and protected via a conservation easement dedicated to the SFWMD and Collier County. Upon agreement that the Parcel has satisfied the requirements of the SFWMD and COE mitigation program, it is anticipated that the lands will be transferred to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund of the State of Florida (TIITF), the Florida Division of State Lands to be managed by the Florida Forest Service as part the Picayune Strand State Forest, or another acceptable entity. To date, an entity has not been contacted regarding a potential donation of the Off-Site Mitigation Parcel. Correction Comment 4: Provide the following Environmental Data (LDC 3.08.00): Please address Black Bear management for the proposed project. Provide an exhibit, show the presence of black bear in relation to the proposed project's location. Response As requested, an exhibit is enclosed depicting the location of black bear telemetry in relation to the Project location. In addition, the enclosed black bear management plan has been prepared to address project related concerns regarding the Florida black bear(Ursus americanus floridanus). Correction Comment 5: Provide the following Environmental Data (LDC 3.08.00): The Listed Species Survey indicates no listed species were observed onsite; will any additional consultations be taken regarding listed species referenced by various zones (ie Primary Panther Zone) with the state and or federal agencies? Response Per email communication with the COE dated December 21, 2020, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found that the proposed action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, any 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 574 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) 3 federally listed species protected by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et. seq.). The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) will evaluate the Project as part of the SFWMD ERP review process for Application No. 210623-6603); however, to date, no comments have been received from the FWCC. 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 575 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) DR AWN BY REVIEWED BY REVISED DA TE DA TE DATE #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #*#* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #*#* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #*#* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #*MMAARRIINNOOCCIIRRSKYWAY DRSKYWAY DRAA RR BB OORRLLAAKKEESSCCTTAMITY RDAMITY RD PPAALLMMEERRCCTTRROOZZZZIINNIILL NNEEMMIILLIIAALLNNRED BIRD LNRED BIRD LNNNOOVVAARRAACCTT HH AAGGEENNWW AAYY AASSHHTTOO NNRR DD GGAARR IIBB AA LL DD II CCTT HH AA MM PP SS HH IIRREECC TTBEAGLE LAKE RDBEAGLE LAKE RDPPRREESSTTWW II CCKK DDRRBRANDY LNBRANDY LNCCOOTTTTEESSMMOORREEDDRR BBYY RR OO NNSS WWAAYY JOHNS RDJOHNS RDWWIINNGGEEDDFFOOOOTTCCTT MORGAN RDMORGAN RDCCAASSTT LLEE RR OOCCKKWWAAYY THE LORD'S WAYTHE LORD'S WAY HHAAWWTTHHOORRNNEEDDRRCCLLAASSSSIICCSSDDRRIINNVVEERRNNEESSSSCCLLUU BB DDRR VVEERROONN AAWWAALLKK CCIIRRLLEELLYYCCUULLTTUURRAALLPPKKWWYYGRAND LELY DRGRAND LELY DRCCLL UUBB EESS TTAATTEESS DDRR CCEERR RR OO MMAARR DD RR RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK RDRATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK RD SSAABBAALL PPAALLMM RRDDCOLLIER BLVD (CR 951)COLLIER BLVD (CR 951)AERIAL W ITH BOUNDAR Y A ND BLACK BE AR TEL EME TRY P.F . B.B. 8/5/21 8/5/21 0 1,000 2,000Feet ¶ LEGEND #* CARM AN DRIVE 15 RPUD PRO JECT LOCATION 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 576 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 577 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) Passarella & Associates, Inc. 1 of 1 #20CDL3377 08/18/2021 CARMAN DRIVE 15 RPUD FLORIDA BLACK BEAR MANAGEMENT PLAN August 2021 INTRODUCTION This report details the Florida Black Bear Management Plan for Carman Drive 15 RPUD (Project). This plan pertains to the Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus), which is not listed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. However, the FWCC’s Florida Black Bear Management Plan 1 recommends implementation of certain management activities to reduce the potential for human/bear interaction and conflict. The Project site is located in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County (Exhibit 1). More specifically, the Project is located approximately 0.3 mile northeast of the intersection of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and County Road 951 and is bordered to the north by the Sapphire Cove residential community, to the east by Florida Sports Park Road, to the south by the WaterCrest Parcel, and to the west by a Florida Power & Light easement. The Project site is comprised mainly of disturbed wetlands that have been degraded through prior clearing and land disturbance and by the invasion of high levels of exotic vegetation including melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia), earleaf acacia (Acacia auriculiformis), and Peruvian primrose willow (Ludwigia peruviana). The poor quality of the on-site habitat does not lend it support as a suitable habitat for black bears. FLORIDA BLACK BEAR EDUCATION PLAN The following plan has been prepared for the purpose of addressing the potential for conflicts between the Florida black bear and construction/maintenance personnel and future residents of the Project. The informational brochure created by the FWCC titled “A Guide to Living in Bear Country” provides background information on the identification, habits, and protection of the Florida black bear and will be available to future homeowners and construction/maintenance personnel (Exhibit 2). The brochure educates the public about the Florida black bear and how to discourage bears around homes. The brochure also provides FWCC contact information for homeowners who may experience bear problems. Residents and tenants will be provided with information on how to secure their garbage containers to discourage bears from foraging in trash cans and dumpsters. The information on securing garbage containers, which will be provided to homeowners and construction/maintenance personnel, is included as Exhibit 3. 1Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2019. Florida Black Bear Management Plan. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, Florida, 209 p. 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 578 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) EXHIBIT 1 PROJECT LOCATION MAP 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 579 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) REVIEWED BY DRAWN BY REVISED DATE DATE DATECCHHAARRLLEEMMAAGGNNEEBBLLVVDD WHITAKER RDWHITAKER RD LLAAKKEE WW OOOODDBBLLVVDDA A LLBBIIRRDD VVEERROONNAAWWAALL KK CCII RRMANATEE RDMANATEE RDOOUUTTEERR DDRR ALLEYALLEYII VV YY DDRR TTRREEVV IISSOO BBAAYYBBLLVVDDBAYSHORE DRBAYSHORE DRGAIL BLVDGAIL BLVD COUNTY BARN RDCOUNTY BARN RDCOPE LNCOPE LN CREWS RDCREWS RD EVERLY AVEEVERLY AVE 31ST AVE SW31ST AVE SW 27TH AVE SW27TH AVE SW 66TH ST SW66TH ST SW29TH AVE SW29TH AVE SW 68TH ST SW68TH ST SW70TH ST SW70TH ST SW25TH AVE SW25TH AVE SW PALM DRPALM DRLE BUFFS RDLE BUFFS RD4444TTHHSSTTSSWWBENFIELD RDBENFIELD RDNN OORRTTHH RRDD GARLAND RDGARLAND RDINEZ RDINEZ RDMARKLEY AVEMARKLEY AVE FL O R I D A N A V E FL O R I D A N A V E GREENWAY RDGREENWAY RDKKIINNGGSSWWAAYYBECK BLVDBECK BLVD 32ND AVE SW32ND AVE SW NNAAPPLLEESSHH EERRIITTAA GGEEDDRR ESTEY AVEESTEY AVE COLLIER BLVD (SR 951)COLLIER BLVD (SR 951)CCEERRRROOMMAARR DDRRWWIILLDDFFLLOOWWEERR WWAA YY LLEELLYYRREESSOORRTTBBLLVVDDCCEELLEESSTTEEDDRRGGLLEENNEEAAGGLLEEBB LLVVDDAIRPORT PULLING RD SAIRPORT PULLING RD STTHHOOMMAASSSSOONN DDRRGGRREEYY OOAAKKSS DDRRSSBB AA RR EE FF OO OOTTWWIILLLLIIAAMMSSRRDDLLIIVVIINNGGSSTTOONNRRDDGGRRAANNDDLL EE LLYYDDRRAAIIRRPPOORRTTPPUULLLLIINNGGRRDDNN SMITH RDSMITH RDSSAAIINNTT AA NN DD RR EEWWSSBBLL VVDDWWHHIITTEELLAAKKEE BBLLVVDD KKIINNGGSS LLAAKKEEBBLLVVDDBLACKBURN RDBLACKBURN RD SANTA BARBARA BLVDSANTA BARBARA BLVDRRAATTTTLLEESSNNAAKKEE HHAAMMMMOOCCKK RRDD RRAADDIIOO RRDD GGOOLLDDEENN GGAATT EE PPKKWW YYDAVIS BLVDDAVIS BLVD COLLIER BLVD (CR 951)COLLIER BLVD (CR 951)SABAL PALM RDSABAL PALM RD (/41 ;3EXIT101 ;3EXIT105 §¨¦75 Gulf of Mexico SNAKERDALICO RD OIL WELL RD C O R K SCREW RD EVERGLADES BLVD¿À892 ¿À849 ¿À951 ¿À94 ¿À858 ¿À82 ¿À850 ¿À837 ¿À835 ¿À839 ¿À833 ¿À846 ¿À29 (/41 §¨¦75 C O L L I E R C O L L I E R H E N D R Y H E N D R Y L E E L E E M O N R O E M O N R O E ^^^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^ ^ ^^ ^ ^ MIAMI TAMPA NAPLES ORLANDO KEY WEST SARASOTA PENSACOLA FORT MYERS VERO BEACH LAKE PLACID PANAMA CITY GAINESVILLE TALLAHASSEE JACKSONVILLE DAYTONA BEACH FORT LAUDERDALE¶ PROJECT LOCATIONSEC 14, TWP 50 S, RNG 26 E EXHIBIT 1. PROJECT LOCATION MAP P.F. B.B. 4/14/21 4/14/21CARMAN DRIVE 15 RPUD 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 580 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) EXHIBIT 2 A GUIDE TO LIVING IN BEAR COUNTRY 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 581 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) If you are experiencing bear problems, please contact the nearest FWC regional office. North Central, Lake City 386-758-0525 Northeast, Ocala 352-732-1225 Northwest, Panama City 850-265-3676 South, West Palm Beach 561-625-5122 Southwest, Lakeland 863-648-3200 If you suspect illegal activity, call FWC’s Wildlife Alert Hotline at 1-888-404-3922. Cover photo by Ashley Hockenberry A guide to living in bear country printed on recycled paper Discouraging bears at home Properly storing or securing residential garbage and other attractants is a proven method of discouraging bears and preventing bear problems around homes, farms and neighborhoods. The following items attract bears and should be protected by an electric fence, wildlife resistant containers or stored in a secure place, such as a garage or sturdy shed: n Trash and recycling containers n Bird and squirrel feeders n Game feeders n Pet foods and bowls n Barbeque grills and smokers n Pets and small livestock n Livestock feed n Compost piles n Beehives n Fruit and nut-bearing trees and shrubs Help conserve black bears by purchasing a Conserve Wildlife license plate at your local tax collector’s office or online at BuyAPlate.com. Secure common bear attractants n Use electric fencing to protect gardens, compost piles, apiaries and livestock. n Store garbage and recyclables in bear- resistant containers or in a secure area until morning of pick up. n Feed pets indoors or bring food dishes inside before dark. Store pet and livestock feed in bear-resistant containers. n Remove bird and wildlife feeders. Ensure the area is free of all seed, corn or other wild animal feed. n Keep orchards and gardens tidy. Remove rotten fruit and harvest all nuts, fruits and vegetables when ripe. n Clean meat smokers and barbeque grills with a degreasing detergent. Properly dispose of food remnants after each use. Learn more about black bears with the Florida Black Bear Curriculum Guide. The guide is designed to educate teachers and students in grades 3-8 and offers a comprehensive series of lessons on Florida’s black bear. To learn more about black bears and for tips on how to reduce bear attractants, as well as instructions for electric fencing, suggestions for bear-resistant containers, information about the Conserve Wildlife license tag or the curriculum guide, visit MyFWC.com/bear. Bear ranges in Florida Milt FoxJessica Tice9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 582 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 Charles TowneAshley HockenberryIf you live in Florida, you should know Black bears are at a crossroads in the Sunshine State. Since the 1980s, Florida’s bear population has been increasing in most areas of the state while the human population is rapidly expanding. As a result, bears and humans are encountering each other more than ever. Calls to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) about black bear and human encounters have increased from 1,000 in 2001 to over 2,500 in 2008. The most common calls refer to bear sightings and bears in garbage. The mere presence of a black bear does not represent a problem. In fact, living in bear country can provide unique and rewarding experiences for residents. However, when black bears have access to pet food, garbage, birdseed, livestock feed or other sources of food, they quickly learn to associate people with food. Bears often are fed by humans, either intentionally or unintentionally. Once they become more comfortable around people, that familiarity may become a problem for both people and bears. Those bears are often killed, either by vehicle collisions, illegal shooting or as a result of bear management actions. People ask why problem bears can’t simply be relocated to a “wilderness area where they won’t bother anyone.” Unfortunately, areas that are large and remote enough for bears to avoid people are rare in Florida. Relocated bears typically leave the new area, either to return to their original home or to leave an area already occupied by other bears. Some bears will wander through unfamiliar areas and cross busy roads, creating a danger to the bear and to motorists. In addition, bears that do remain in the relocation area often exhibit the same behavior, which just shifts the problem to a new location. As a result, relocation is not a desirable or effective solution to bear conflicts. Wildlife biologists can provide technical advice to residents who live in bear country to help them take actions that will discourage bears from becoming a problem. The FWC is committed to ensuring the long- term well-being of the black bear, while addressing the property damage and safety concerns of residents and visitors. If a bear comes into your yard If you encounter a bear at close range, remain standing upright, back up slowly and speak to the bear in a calm, assertive voice. n Do not intentionally feed or attract bears. If a bear is eating something on your property, take note of what it is and secure it after the bear has left the area. n Never approach or surprise a bear. Keep as much distance between you and the bear as possible. n Make sure you are in a secure area, and the bear has a clear escape route to leave the area; then yell, bang pots and pans or use an air horn to scare the bear away. n Do not turn your back, play dead, or run from the bear. Back away slowly into a house, car or building. n Report any bear that is threatening the safety of humans, pets or livestock, or causing property damage, to the FWC (see back panel). Climbing trees is a bear’s natural escape route. If the bear climbs a tree, keep people and pets away. When things quiet down, the bear will come down the tree and leave. This usually happens after dark, when the bear feels safe. Did you know? Black bears are shy animals and generally not agressive towards people. When a bear stands on its hind legs, it is merely trying to get a better view, rather than acting in a threatening way. A bear may huff, snap its jaws and swat the ground if it feels threatened. Black bears might “bluff charge” when cornered, threatened or stealing food. Stand your ground and then slowly back away. Always respect bears – they are large and powerful wild animals. The bear facts Black bears are the only species of bear in Florida and they once roamed the state’s entire 34.5 million acres. n FWC biologists estimate there are 2,500-3,000 black bears in Florida. n Florida bears are black with a brown muzzle and may have a white chest marking called a blaze. n Adult black bears weigh 150-400 pounds; males are usually larger than females. The largest male bear on record in Florida weighed 624 pounds; the largest female weighed 342 pounds. n Female bears have their first litter at about 31/2 years of age and generally have one to three cubs every other year. n In Florida the breeding season runs from June to August and cubs are born about seven months later, in late January or early February. n Bears of all ages are excellent climbers and will climb trees when they are frightened. n About 80 percent of a black bear’s diet comes from plants (e.g., fruits, nuts, berries), 15 percent from insects and 5 percent from meat. Ashley HockenberryAshley Hockenberry It is illegal to intentionally place food or garbage out that attracts bears and causes conflicts. Anything that attracts dogs, cats or raccoons also will attract bears! 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 583 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 EXHIBIT 3 BEAR RESISTANT TRASH CONTAINERS 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 584 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) BEAR RESISTANT TRASH CONTAINERS (prices last updated October 2012) Residential Poly Carts WITH automatic locking lids AND designed for fully-automated waste pick-up Residential Poly Carts and Cans WITH automatic locking lids Company Contact Info/ Testing Status Size Minimum order Price per container without shipping Shipping *To Tallahassee, FL Estimated Cost per Container a Kodiak Products 1-800-519-1172 Info@Kodiak-Products.com http://www.kodiak- products.com/ Passed IGBT a 96 gallon 1 Contact Kodiak Products Contact Kodiak Products $270.00 96 gallon 300 Contact Kodiak Products Contact Kodiak Products $237.00 Company Contact Info/ Testing Status Size Minimum order Price per container without shipping Shipping *To Tallahassee, FL Estimated Cost per Container a Toter, Inc Statesville, NC 1-800-424-0422 toter@toter.com http://www.toter.com Passed IGBT a 96 gallon 50 $197 $750 (for minimum 50 cans order) $212.00 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 585 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Residential Poly Carts and Cans WITH automatic locking lids Residential Poly Carts and Cans WITHOUT automatic locking lids Company Contact Info/ Testing Status Size Minimum order Price per container without shipping Shipping *To Tallahassee, FL Estimated Cost per Container a BearSaver 1-800-851-3887 Fax: 909-605-7780 sales@bearsaver.com http://www.bearsaver.com Passed IGBT a 32 gallon 20 Contact BearSaver Contact BearSaver Contact BearSaver 65 gallon 20 $159 $473 $182.65 96 gallon 24 $170 $863 $205.96 BearProof, Inc. 234 S. Golden Dr. Silt, CO 81652 970-309-2460 Fax: 970-876-0420 Info@BearProofInc.com http://www.bearproofinc.com 32 gallon 1 $663 each (for 1-4 cans) $638 each (for 5+ cans) $291.59 $954.59 – 929.59b 65 gallon 1 $404 each (for 1-4 cans) $379 each (for 5+ cans) $237.97 $641.97 – 616.97b 96 gallon 1 $416 each (for 1-4 cans) $391 each (for 5+ cans) $265.90 $947.80 – 656.90b Company Contact Info/ Testing Status Size Minimum order Price per container without shipping Shipping *To Tallahassee, FL Estimated Cost per Container a The Growler Sanford, FL 407-519-0766 dennisbooth@cfl.rr.com http://www.thegrowlercan.com Passed IGBTP a 32 gallon 1 $179 (Discounts if buying >3) Free in central FL or $34 $189 in central FL or $221 64 gallon 1 $189 (Discounts if buying >3) Free in central FL or $85 $189 in central FL or $274 95 gallon 1 $209 (Discounts if buying >3) Free in central FL or $100 $209 in central FL or $309 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 586 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Residential Poly Carts and Cans WITHOUT automatic locking lids Company Contact Info/ Testing Status Size Minimum order Price per container without shipping Shipping* *To Tallahassee, FL Estimated Cost per Container b Solid Waste Systems 7855 E. Lark Dr. Parker, CO 80138 Phone: 303-840-3390/ 1-800-944-7973 Fax: 303-840-3460 solidws@comcast.net http://www.bearproofsystems.c om/ Passed IGBTP a 65 gallon 1 $172 $128 $300 95 gallon 1 $190 $200 $390 BEARicuda Bins 1-877-232-7428 Fax: 860-540-0611 kevin@bearicuda.com http://www.bearicuda.com 32 gallon 1 $189 each (for 1-3 cans) $185 each (for 4+ cans) $75 $226.50 – 222.50b 64 gallon 1 $199 each (for 1-3 cans) $165 each (for 4+ cans) Contact BEARicuda Bins Contact BEARicuda Bins 95 gallon 1 $219 each (for 1-3 cans) $209 each (for 4+ cans) $169 $303 - $251.25b DAWG, Inc. 25 Lassy Court Terryville, CT 06786 1-800-935-3294 bgalvin@dawginc.com http://www.dawginc.com Passed IGBTP a 32 gallon 1 $183 $67.50 (for 1 can) $412 (for 16 cans) $250.50 - $208.75c 64 gallon 1 $192 $158 (for 1 can) $439 (for 12 cans) $350 – 228.60c 95 gallon 1 $208 $186 (for 1 can) $382 (for 8 cans) $394 – $255.75c 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 587 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Residential Poly Carts and Cans WITHOUT automatic locking lids a Product has passed the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee Testing Program (IGBTP) with captive bears at the Living with Wildlife Foundation. b The “ Estimated Cost per Container” column is showing = amount for shipping divided by (÷) the minimum amount that has to be purchased plus (+) the price per container. Therefore, it is showing the cost of one can. Each company has their own minimum order of cans that has to be purchased. Hence, the price provided in the last column is NOT the total cost of the full order. c Costs depend on the amount of cans being purchased (shipping costs decreases the more cans purchased) d Costs depend on the “type” of order you place (assembled or with hardware kit) NOTE: all final prices depend on the amount of cans bought, price of gas at the moment of shipping, and the area where it is being shipped. Company Contact Info/ Testing Status Size Minimum order Price per container without shipping Shipping* *To Tallahassee, FL Estimated Cost per Container b Bear Proofing- R-US Phone: 704-435-8297/ 704-466-8010 bearproofing.r.us@gmail.com http://bearproofingr-us.com/ 96 gallon 1 $132 $333 if pre-assembled $282 with hardware kit $465 – 414d 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 588 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Residential Poly Carts and Cans WITH screw on lids Company Contact Info Size Minimum order Price per container without shipping Shipping* *To Tallahassee, FL Estimated Cost per Container a DAWG, Inc. 25 Lassy Court Terryville, CT 06786 Phone: 800-935-3294 bgalvin@dawginc.com http://www.dawginc.com 20 gallon 1 $38 Contact DAWG, Inc. Contact DAWG, Inc. 30 gallon 1 $62 $65 (for 1 can) $461.50 (for 24 cans) $124 - $78.22b BEARicuda Bins Phone: 877-232-7428 Fax: 860-540-0611 kevin@bearicuda.com http://www.bearicuda.com 50 gallon 1 $235 (for 1-5 cans) $225 (for 6+ cans) Contact BEARicuda Bins Contact BEARicuda Bins 95 gallon 1 $265 (for 1-5 cans) $239 (for 6+ cans) Contact BEARicuda Bins Contact BEARicuda Bins BEARier Bins John Burpee 1-888-433-6920 Fax 888-778-5869 info@bearierbins.com 30 gallon 1 $65 Contact BEARier Bins Contact BEARier Bins a The “ Estimated Cost per Container” column is showing = amount for shipping divided by (÷) the minimum amount that has to be purchased plus (+) the price per container. Therefore, it is showing the cost of one can. Each company has their own minimum order of cans that has to be purchased. Hence, the price provided in the last column is NOT the total cost of the full order. NOTE: all final prices depend on the amount of cans bought, price of gas at the moment of shipping, and the area where it is being shipped. 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 589 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Other Recreational / Residential Trash Storage Containers See the following companies (listed above) for more options: BearSaver, Bear Proof Inc., Bear Proofing-R-US, Bear Proof Systems *For shipping costs contact the corresponding company Company Contact Info/ Testing Status Description Size Price per container without shipping BearGuard P.O. Box 89 Tahoe City, CA 96145 Phone/Fax: 530-581-2211 sales@bearguardinfo.com http://www.bearguardinfo.com Passed IGBTP a Metal trashcan enclosure – internal lock with key *closed for the winter months Holds two 32 gallon round cans $1,099 Holds two 32 gallon rectangular cans $999 Haul-All Equipment Ltd. 1-888-428-5255 Fax: 403-328-9956 sales@haulall.com http://www.haulall.com/contain.htm Passed IGBTP a Metal trashcan enclosure – with automatic latching door Holds two 32 gallon round cans Contact company for pricing Smoky Metal Works 1014 Old Knoxville Hwy Sevierville, TN 37862 965-908-4248 sam@smokymetalworks.com www.smokymetalworks.com Wire mesh metal - trashcan enclosure with clip or lock on door Holds two 32 gallon round cans $375 a Product has passed the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee Testing Program (IGBTP) with captive bears at the Living with Wildlife Foundation 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 590 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Animal Resistant Dumpsters There are many more companies who sell animal resistant dumpsters, this is just a sample. All companies listed passed the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee Testing Program with captive bears at the Living with Wildlife Foundation. For shipping costs, please contact the corresponding company. Company Contact Info/ Testing Status Description Design Price per container without shipping Capital Industries, Inc. 5801 Third Avenue South Seattle, WA 98108 1-800-967-8585 / 206-762-8585 Fax: 206-762-5455 sales@capitalind.com http://www.capitalind.com/main/ Metal Containers & Lids Various - 2, 4, and 6 cubic yard contact company for pricing Haul-All Equipment Ltd. 1-888-428-5255 Fax: 403-328-9956 sales@haulall.com http://www.haulall.com/contain.htm Metal Containers & Lids Various - 2, 4, and 6 cubic yard contact company for pricing 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 591 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Company Contact Info/ Testing Status Description Design Price per container without shipping Robertson Enterprises Robertson Enterprises P.O. Box 1711 Cody, WY 82414 307-587-2925 ext:12 http://robertsonenterprises.net/ Metal Containers & Lids Various - 2, 4, and 6 cubic yard contact company for pricing Colorado Correctional Industries 2862 S. Circle Dr. Colorado Springs, CO 80906 1-800-685-7891 http://www.coloradoci.com Metal Containers & Lids Various - 2, 4, and 6 cubic yard contact company for pricing Jamestown Advanced Jamestown Advanced Products Corporation 2855 Girts Rd. Jamestown, NY 14701 1-800-452-0639 http://www.jamestownadvanced.com/ Metal Containers & Lids Various - 2, 4, and 6 cubic yard contact company for pricing UltraTec. 7278 Justin Way Mentor, OH 44060 1-800-585-8723 http://www.industrialinterface.com/compan y/waste/987/ultratech-international-inc/ Metal Containers & Lids Various - 2, 4, and 6 cubic yard contact company for pricing Enterprise Sales 540 Southeast 9th Avenue Ontario, OR 97914-3866 541-889-5541 Metal Containers & Lids Various - 2, 4, and 6 cubic yard contact company for pricing 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 592 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Traffic Impact Study 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 593 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 594 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 595 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 596 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 597 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 598 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 599 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 600 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 601 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 602 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 603 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 604 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 605 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 606 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 607 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 608 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 609 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) 9.A.3.cPacket Pg. 610Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 611 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 612 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) 9.A.3.cPacket Pg. 613Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman 9.A.3.cPacket Pg. 614Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 615 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 616 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) 9.A.3.cPacket Pg. 617Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman 9.A.3.cPacket Pg. 618Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 619 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 620 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 621 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 622 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) Master Site File Letter 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 623 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) 500 South Bronough Street • Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 • www.flheritage.com/preservation/sitefile 850.245.6440 ph | 850.245.6439 fax | SiteFile@dos.state.fl.us This record search is for informational purposes only and does NOT constitute a project review. This search only identifies resources recorded at the Florida Master Site File and does NOT provide project approval from the Division of Historical Resources. Contact the Compliance and Review Section of the Division of Historical Resources at CompliancePermits@dos.MyFlorida.com for project review information. April 29, 2021 Patrick Murray Project Planner / GIS Analyst In response to your request on April 29, 2021, the Florida Master Site File lists no cultural resources recorded in the designated area located at 8496 Rattlesnake Hammock Rd. East of Collier Blvd and North of Rattlesnake Hammock Rd and sits within Section 14 / Township 50 / Range 26, Collier County, Florida. When interpreting the results of our search, please consider the following information: x This search area may contain unrecorded archaeological sites, historical structures or other resources even if previously surveyed for cultural resources. x Because vandalism and looting are common at Florida sites, we ask that you limit the distribution of location information on archaeological sites. x While many of our records document historically significant resources, the documentation of a resource at the Florida Master Site File does not necessarily mean the resource is historically significant. x Federal, state and local laws require formal environmental review for most projects. This search DOES NOT constitute such a review. If your project falls under these laws, you should contact the Compliance and Review Section of the Division of Historical Resources at CompliancePermits@dos.MyFlorida.com Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions regarding the results of this search. Sincerely, Eman M. Vovsi, Ph.D. Florida Master Site File Eman.Vovsi@DOS.MyFlorida.com 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 624 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) 8496 Rattlesnake Hammock Rd Poison Ivy Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS UserCommunity 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 625 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman School Impact Analysis 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 626 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 627 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) 9.A.3.cPacket Pg. 628Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 629 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) PUD Document 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 630 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) Carman Drive 15 RPUD Last Revised: April 22, 2022 Page 1 of 9 EXHIBIT “A” LIST OF PERMITTED USES Carman Drive 15 RPUD Regulations for development of this PUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this document and all applicable sections of the Growth Management Plan (GMD), the Land Development Code (LDC), and the Administrative Code in effect at the time of approval of the first Site Development Plan (SDP) or plat. Where the PUD ordinance does not provide development standards, then the provision of the specific sections of the LDC that are otherwise applicable shall apply. PERMITTED USES: A maximum of 212 dwelling units shall be permitted in this PUD. 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: I. RESIDENTIAL TRACTS A. Principal Uses: 1. Single-family detached dwelling units. 2. Two-family dwelling units. 3. Townhouses. 4. Multi-family dwelling units. 5. Recreational uses and facilities for residents and guests, including but not limited to: swimming pools, tennis courts, volleyball courts, walking paths, picnic areas, recreation buildings, and basketball/shuffle board courts. B. Accessory Uses: Accessory uses customarily associated with Permitted Principal Uses, including but not limited to: 1. Customary accessory uses and structures including carports, garages, and utility buildings. 2. Temporary sales trailers and model units. 3. Essential services, including interim and permanent utility and maintenance facilities. 4. Water management facilities. 5. Walls, berms and signs. 6. Passive open space uses and structures, including, but not limited to landscaped areas, gazebos, park benches, and walking trails. Any other principal use that is determined to be comparable to the foregoing by the Board of Zoning Appeals, or Hearing Examiner, pursuant to the process outlined in the Land Development Code (LDC). 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 631 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) Carman Drive 15 RPUD Last Revised: April 22, 2022 Page 2 of 9 EXHIBIT “B” DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Carman Drive 15 RPUD The standards for land uses within the development shall be as stated in these development standard tables. 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. Guardhouses, gatehouses, access control structures, clock towers, columns, decorative hardscaping or architectural embellishments associated with the project’s entrance are permitted and shall have no required internal setbacks; however, such structures cannot be located where they create sight distance issues for motorists and pedestrians and cannot exceed 35 feet in actual height. TABLE I RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PERMITTED USES AND STANDARDS Single-Family Detached Two-Family Townhouse Multi-Family Clubhouse/ Recreation Buildings Min. Lot Area 3,600 SF 2,430 SF 1,620 SF 10,000 SF N/A Min. Lot Width 40’ 27’ 18’ 100’ N/A Min. Lot Depth 90’ 90’ 90’ 100’ N/A SETBACKS Front Yard(1) 15’(2)(3) 15’(2)(3) 15’(2) 15’ 15’ Side Yard(5) 5’ 0’/5’ 0’/5’ 10’ 10’ Rear Yard (Principal)(4&5) Rear Yard (Accessory)(4&5) 7.5’ 5’ 7.5’ 5’ 7.5’ 5’ 10’(4) 5’ 10’ 5’ Min. Distance Between Principal Structures 10’ 10’ 10’ 10’ for 1 & 2-story buildings ½ Building Height for 3-story buildings or higher 10’ Maximum Height(6) Actual Zoned 45’ 40’ 45’ 40’ 45’ 40’ 55’ 45’ 45’ 40’ (1) Front setback is measured from building to right-of-way, road easement line or in the case of multi-family dwelling types the edge of pavement of the drive aisle. Front setback for multi-family dwelling types shall be a minimum of 10 feet where measured from parking stall. (2) Front-loading/front-entry garages shall be setback a minimum of 23’ from the back of sidewalk. Units with side-loaded garages shall have a minimum 10' setback from the private right-of-way or road easement line. (3) Corner lots shall provide one (1) front yard setback within the yard that contains the driveway/vehicular access to the dwelling unit. The secondary front yard that does not contain the driveway/vehicular access to the dwelling unit shall provide a minimum 10-foot setback 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 632 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) Carman Drive 15 RPUD Last Revised: April 22, 2022 Page 3 of 9 measured from the right-of-way, and will have no overhang into the utility easement if there are any buildings adjacent to that secondary front yard setback. (4) 0’ principal and accessory setbacks are permitted from lake maintenance easements and landscape buffer easements, which will be separate platted tracts or tracts on the PPL/SDP. (5) There shall be no setback restrictions to the installation of fencing to create private yards between principal structures. (6) Buildings in the residential development tract abutting the northern property line are limited to 35’/2 stories for maximum zoned height and 40’ for actual height. GENERAL: Except as provided for herein, all criteria set forth below shall be understood to be in relation to individual parcel or lot boundary lines, or between structures. Condominium, and/or homeowners’ association boundaries shall not be utilized for determining development standards. Landscape buffers and lake maintenance easements shall be platted as separate tracts at time of subdivision plat approval, or labeled as separate tracks on the SDP. Note: Nothing in this PUD document shall be deemed to approve a deviation from the LDC unless it is expressly stated in a list of deviations. 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 633 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) CARMAN DRIVE(PRIVATE)R R R R 10' WIDE TYPE "A" BUFFER WITH OPTIONAL FENCE BUFFER PER LDC AT TIME OF SDP OR PPL WITH OPTIONAL FENCE 20' WIDE TYPE "C" BUFFER (MAX. COMBINED FENCE/WALL/BERM HEIGHT OF 10' AND MIN. OF 6') BUFFER PER LDC AT TIME OF SDP OR PPL WITH OPTIONAL FENCE BUFFER PER LDC AT TIME OF SDP OR PPL WITH OPTIONAL FENCE PRESERVE PRESERVE ZONED: GOOD TURN CENTER MPUD USE: VACANT COMMERCIAL ZONED: THE LORD'S WAY RPUD USE: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONED: HACIENDA LAKES MPUD USE: FLORIDA SPORTS PARK ZONED: MCMULLEN MPUD USE: VACANT MIXED USE ZONED: AGRICULTURE USE: FPL UTILITY SITE RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROADCOLLIER BOULEVARD(CR 951)170' FPL EASEMENT ZONED: HAMMOCK PARK MPUD USE: COMMERCIAL / MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 2 R B:\Projects\1248-100 (Carman Drive 15) Planning & Zoning\Drawings-Exhibits\1248-100-01 MCP\Current Plans\12481000106.dwgSET #: SHEET :PLAN REVISIONSCARMAN DRIVE 15 RPUDRPUD MASTER PLANEXHIBIT CWALDROPENGINEERING28100 BONITA GRANDE DRIVE - SUITE 305 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135P: 239-405-7777 F: 239-405-7899 EMAIL: info@waldropengineering.comCIVIL ENGINEERING &LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS12/13/2021REVISED PER COUNTY COMMENTS1NORTH SCALE: 1" = 350' INGRESS/ EGRESS LEGEND NOTES: 1.THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND IS SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION DUE TO AGENCY PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS. 2.ALL ACREAGES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION AT THE TIME OF SDP OR PLAT APPROVAL. 3.NO ONSITE PRESERVE PROVIDED. OFF-SITE MITIGATION TO BE PROVIDED PER LDC SEC 3.05.07 4.THE LOCATION OF THE ONSITE LAKE AND RESIDENTIAL TRACTS IS PRELIMINARY AND MAY BE ADJUSTED AT SITE PLAN APPROVAL. MAXIMUM PERMITTED UNITS / DENSITY CALCULATION: 15.41± ACRES X 13.8 UNITS / ACRE = 212 UNITS LAKE RESIDENTIALR PROPOSED PAVEMENT 1 OF 2 1248-100-01 #DEVIATION LOCATION 01/24/2022REVISED PER COUNTY COMMENTS204/20/2022REVISED PER COUNTY COMMENTS39.A.3.c Packet Pg. 634 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman WALL CROSS SECTION (TYP.) N.T.S. MAX. COMBINED FENCE/WALL/BERM HEIGHT OF 10' AND MIN. OF 6' 3:1 M A X . PERIMETER BERM PROPERTY BOUNDARY MATCH EXISTING GRADE VARIES 2.0' TYP.VARIES CARMAN DRIVE 2 3:1 MA X . 2 OF 2 1248-100-01 B:\Projects\1248-100 (Carman Drive 15) Planning & Zoning\Drawings-Exhibits\1248-100-01 MCP\Current Plans\12481000106.dwgSET #: SHEET :PLAN REVISIONSCARMAN DRIVE 15 RPUDRPUD MASTER PLANEXHIBIT CWALDROPENGINEERING28100 BONITA GRANDE DRIVE - SUITE 305 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135P: 239-405-7777 F: 239-405-7899 EMAIL: info@waldropengineering.comCIVIL ENGINEERING &LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS12/13/2021REVISED PER COUNTY COMMENTS101/24/2022REVISED PER COUNTY COMMENTS204/20/2022REVISED PER COUNTY COMMENTS39.A.3.c Packet Pg. 635 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Carman Drive 15 RPUD Last Revised: April 22, 2022 Page 4 of 9 EXHIBIT “C” RPUD Master Plan Carman Drive 15 RPUD 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 636 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) Carman Drive 15 RPUD Last Revised: April 22, 2022 Page 5 of 9 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 637 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) Carman Drive 15 RPUD Last Revised: April 22, 2022 Page 6 of 9 EXHIBIT “D” LEGAL DESCRIPTION Carman Drive 15 RPUD Parcel One: The East ½ of the North ½ of the Southeast ¼ of the Southwest ¼ of Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26, Collier County, Florida Parcel Two: The South ½ of the West ½ of the North ½ of the Southeast ¼ of the Southwest ¼ of Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida Parcels contains 15.41 acres, more or less. 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 638 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) Carman Drive 15 RPUD Last Revised: April 22, 2022 Page 7 of 9 EXHIBIT “E” LIST OF REQUESTED DEVIATIONS FROM LDC Carman Drive 15 RPUD Deviation 1: Deviation from LDC Section 4.06.02.C.2, which requires a 15-foot-wide Type “B” buffer between single-family and multi-family dwelling units and amenity centers, to instead allow for a 7.5-foot-wide Type “B” buffer between internal dwelling units and on-site recreation/amenity uses. The buffer will contain 3-gallon muhly grass, planted 3-feet off center on the residential side of the Type “B” plant materials. Deviation 2: Deviation from LDC Section 5.03.02.C.2, which permits a maximum fence/wall height of 6 feet in residential zoning districts, to instead allow for a maximum fence/wall/berm height of 10 feet along Carman Drive. 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 639 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) Carman Drive 15 RPUD Last Revised: April 22, 2022 Page 8 of 9 EXHIBIT “F” DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS Carman Drive 15 RPUD 1. GENERAL A. One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for PUD monitoring until close-out of the PUD, and this entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all PUD commitments until close-out of the PUD. At the time of this PUD approval, the Managing Entity is Carman Drive 15, LLC. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring and commitments to a successor entity, then it must provide a copy of a legally binding document that needs to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney. After such approval, the Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon written approval of the transfer by County staff, and the successor entity shall become the Managing Entity. As Owner and Developer sell off tracts, the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to County that includes an acknowledgement of the commitments required by the PUD by the new owner and the new owner’s agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing Entity, but the Managing Entity shall not be relieved of its responsibility under this Section. When the PUD is closed-out, then the Managing Entity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of PUD commitments. B. The RPUD shall demonstrate consistency with affordable housing goals and objectives of the Housing Element by providing the following: 1. 20% of the total units (42 units) will be rented to moderate-income households. Moderate income means those households earning between 81%-120% Area Median Income (AMI). Any time that a unit becomes vacant, assuming less than 42 units are occupied by moderate income households, the next available unit will be offered to a qualifying moderate-income household. 2. This restriction shall remain in place for thirty (30) years from the date of issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. AMI rent limit adjustments will be made on an annual basis according to the most recent Collier County approved Table of Rental Rates. As part of the annual PUD monitoring report the developer will include an annual report that provides the progress and monitoring of occupancy of income restricted units. C. Pursuant to Section 125.022(5) F.S., issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. D. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. E. The developer, its successor or assignee, shall provide to any potential resident a disclosure statement with respect to the noise that is associated with the Swamp Buggy Races located at 8250 Collier Boulevard, Naples, Florida within the Florida Sports Park (within the Hacienda Lakes RPUD) as it relates to the location of this RPUD. The statement shall disclose that the Florida Sports Park and Swamp Buggy operations regularly generate noise which may be heard on the Carman Drive 15 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 640 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) Carman Drive 15 RPUD Last Revised: April 22, 2022 Page 9 of 9 RPUD property, both during the day and into the evening, including but not limited to, noise from swamp buggy racing, tractor pulls, festivals and music concerts. This statement must be presented to the tenant as part of the lease contract. Within 120 days of approval of this PUD, Owner shall record in the public records of Collier County a notice of proximity to the Florida Sports Park and Swamp Buggy grounds. This notice shall disclose that the Florida Sports Park and Swamp Buggy operations regularly generate noise which can be heard on the PUD property, both during the day and into the evening, including but not limited to noise from swamp buggy racing, tractor pulls, festivals, and music concerts. The legal description of the PUD shall be attached to the notice. F. The first 15 units above the base density of 23 units must be through the acquisition of TDR credits. G. All dwelling units within the PUD are limited to rental units. 2. TRANSPORTATION A. The maximum total daily trip generation for the PUD shall not exceed 209 two-way PM peak hour net trips based on the use codes in the ITE Manual on trip generation rates in effect at the time of application for SDP/SDPA or subdivision plat approval. 3. ENVIRONMENTAL A. The subject site contained approximately 0.96 acres of native vegetation, of which 25% (0.24 acres) is required to be preserved. The native vegetation preservation requirement will be satisfied off-site in accordance with the Land Development Code through the preservation of a 25.95± acre Off-Site Mitigation Parcel. 4. UTILITIES A. At the time of application for subdivision Plans and Plat (PPL) and/or Site Development Plan (SDP) approval, as the case may be, offsite improvements and/or upgrades to the wastewater collection/transmission system may be required to adequately handle the total estimated peak hour flow from the project. Whether or not such improvements are necessary, and if so, the exact nature of such improvements and/or upgrades shall be determined during PPL or SDP review. Such improvement and/or upgrades as may be necessary shall be permitted and installed at the developer's expense and may be required to be in place prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any portion or phase of the development that triggers the need for such improvements and/or upgrades. 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 641 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) PUD Master Plan 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 642 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) CARMAN DRIVE(PRIVATE)R R R R 10' WIDE TYPE "A" BUFFER WITH OPTIONAL FENCE BUFFER PER LDC AT TIME OF SDP OR PPL WITH OPTIONAL FENCE 20' WIDE TYPE "C" BUFFER (MAX. COMBINED FENCE/WALL/BERM HEIGHT OF 10' AND MIN. OF 6') BUFFER PER LDC AT TIME OF SDP OR PPL WITH OPTIONAL FENCE BUFFER PER LDC AT TIME OF SDP OR PPL WITH OPTIONAL FENCE PRESERVE PRESERVE ZONED: GOOD TURN CENTER MPUD USE: VACANT COMMERCIAL ZONED: THE LORD'S WAY RPUD USE: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONED: HACIENDA LAKES MPUD USE: FLORIDA SPORTS PARK ZONED: MCMULLEN MPUD USE: VACANT MIXED USE ZONED: AGRICULTURE USE: FPL UTILITY SITE RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROADCOLLIER BOULEVARD(CR 951)170' FPL EASEMENT ZONED: HAMMOCK PARK MPUD USE: COMMERCIAL / MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 2 R B:\Projects\1248-100 (Carman Drive 15) Planning & Zoning\Drawings-Exhibits\1248-100-01 MCP\Current Plans\12481000106.dwgSET #: SHEET :PLAN REVISIONSCARMAN DRIVE 15 RPUDRPUD MASTER PLANEXHIBIT CWALDROPENGINEERING28100 BONITA GRANDE DRIVE - SUITE 305 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135P: 239-405-7777 F: 239-405-7899 EMAIL: info@waldropengineering.comCIVIL ENGINEERING &LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS12/13/2021REVISED PER COUNTY COMMENTS1NORTH SCALE: 1" = 350' INGRESS/ EGRESS LEGEND NOTES: 1.THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND IS SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION DUE TO AGENCY PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS. 2.ALL ACREAGES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION AT THE TIME OF SDP OR PLAT APPROVAL. 3.NO ONSITE PRESERVE PROVIDED. OFF-SITE MITIGATION TO BE PROVIDED PER LDC SEC 3.05.07 4.THE LOCATION OF THE ONSITE LAKE AND RESIDENTIAL TRACTS IS PRELIMINARY AND MAY BE ADJUSTED AT SITE PLAN APPROVAL. MAXIMUM PERMITTED UNITS / DENSITY CALCULATION: 15.41± ACRES X 13.8 UNITS / ACRE = 212 UNITS LAKE RESIDENTIALR PROPOSED PAVEMENT 1 OF 2 1248-100-01 #DEVIATION LOCATION 01/24/2022REVISED PER COUNTY COMMENTS204/20/2022REVISED PER COUNTY COMMENTS39.A.3.c Packet Pg. 643 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman WALL CROSS SECTION (TYP.) N.T.S. MAX. COMBINED FENCE/WALL/BERM HEIGHT OF 10' AND MIN. OF 6' 3:1 M A X . PERIMETER BERM PROPERTY BOUNDARY MATCH EXISTING GRADE VARIES 2.0' TYP.VARIES CARMAN DRIVE 2 3:1 MA X . 2 OF 2 1248-100-01 B:\Projects\1248-100 (Carman Drive 15) Planning & Zoning\Drawings-Exhibits\1248-100-01 MCP\Current Plans\12481000106.dwgSET #: SHEET :PLAN REVISIONSCARMAN DRIVE 15 RPUDRPUD MASTER PLANEXHIBIT CWALDROPENGINEERING28100 BONITA GRANDE DRIVE - SUITE 305 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135P: 239-405-7777 F: 239-405-7899 EMAIL: info@waldropengineering.comCIVIL ENGINEERING &LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS12/13/2021REVISED PER COUNTY COMMENTS101/24/2022REVISED PER COUNTY COMMENTS204/20/2022REVISED PER COUNTY COMMENTS39.A.3.c Packet Pg. 644 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Deviation Justification Narrative 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 645 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) Carman Drive 15 RPUD Deviation Justification Narrative Page 1 of 2 Carman Drive 15 RPUD LIST OF REQUESTED DEVIATIONS FROM LDC REVISED APRIL 2022 Deviation 1: Deviation from LDC Section 4.06.02.C, which requires a 15-foot-wide Type “B” buffer between single-family and multi-family dwelling units and amenity centers, to instead allow for a 7.5-foot-wide Type “B” buffer between internal dwelling units and on-site recreation/amenity uses. The buffer will contain 3-gallon muhly grass, planted 3-feet off center on the single-family residential side of the 7.5’ buffer, in addition to all required Type “B’ plant materials. JUSTIFICATION: The recreation area is intended to serve residents of the community and uphold a common architectural theme consistent with the development. The facility will be an extension of the residential uses within development and will not require extensive buffers that will segregate residents from these amenities. The Applicant will provide the code minimum number of required plantings within the 7.5-foot-wide buffer strip to ensure the deviation does not result in a net loss of vegetation within the project and provide appropriate screening between uses. The Applicant will provide a buffer that will contain 3 gallon muhly grass spaced 3’ on center on the residential side of the Type B buffer plantings in the buffer. This proposed planting will provide additional coverage and screening, as well as visual interest in the buffer area. Deviation 2: Deviation from LDC Section 5.03.02.C.2, which permits a maximum fence/wall height of 6 feet in residential zoning districts, to instead allow for a maximum fence/wall/berm height of 10 feet along the PUD perimeter boundary. JUSTIFICATION: The proposed wall height will mitigate the noise impact and appropriately screen the site from the surrounding attraction and residential uses. The proposed deviation will allow for additional visual screening between the proposed uses, utility sites, and adjacent roadways, while ensuring a quality design aesthetic via screening of the wall by required perimeter plantings. The design will serve to enhance public health, safety and welfare. In no case shall the fence/wall/berm be less than 6 feet in height. 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 646 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) Carman Drive 15 RPUD Deviation Justification Narrative Page 2 of 2 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 647 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) Neighborhood Information Meeting 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 648 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) Page 1 of 3 Memorandum To: Laura DeJohn, AICP, Collier County Zoning Division Michele Mosca, AICP, Collier County Zoning Division From: Alexis Crespo, Waldrop Engineering, P.A. Date: November 8, 2021 Subject: Carman Drive 15 RPUD (PL20210000624) Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA (PL2021000623) Neighborhood Information Meeting Summary Waldrop Engineering, P.A., and Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. conducted a neighborhood informational meeting (NIM) for the Carman Drive Subdistrict Growth Management Plan Amendment and Carman Drive 15 Planned Unit Development (RPUD) rezone. The meeting was held on Monday, October 25, 2021, at 5:00 p.m. at the Fairway Bible Church, 3855 the Lords Way, Naples, FL. The sign-in sheets are attached as Exhibit “A” and demonstrate approximately 4 attendees came to the meeting, including Collier County Staff. Additionally, one (1) attendee participated via Zoom. A copy of the legal notice, affidavit of publication, a copy of the letter sent to surrounding property owners, and a list of the surrounding property owners are attached as Exhibit “D”. Alexis Crespo started the meeting by introducing the project team Waldrop Engineering, the property owner David Torres and Florida Star Development, and Rich Yovanovich with Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. She introduced Collier County staff Laura DeJohn and Michele Mosca. Exhibit boards were provided for the audience depicting Carman Drive Property location and proposed RPUD Master Plan. A handout summarizing the requested changes was distributed as Exhibit “B” and handout identifying the uses that are allowed under the current Agricultural Land Use as Exhibit “C”. She reviewed the proposed RPUD development standards inlcuding 45’ maximum zoned height and 55’ actual height. Following the presentation questions were asked by attendees and responses were provided as outlined below. Public Comment Summary: 1. Could this be up to four stories? RESPONSE: Yes. Could be up to four-stories. 2. Can give more of an explanation on how offsite preserve works. RESPONSE: Off-site mitigation will be provided with land that has more environmental value. This is not simply cutting a check to the County this is negotiated with an environmental agency whether it be the Water Management District, Army Core of Engineers or Department of Environmental Protection. The on-site preserve requirement is 0.25 acres and are committing to 25.95 acre mitigation parcel. This is exponentially more than what would be required on site. 3. Are the buffers 130’ from Sapphire Cove to this development? Is that wall to wall? 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 649 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) Page 2 of 3 RESPONSE: Let me clarify that. The preserve area tract that exists within Sapphire Cove is 120’ wide. Would be about 150’ from wall to wall. 4. Steps to protect the existing eagles nest on the south east corner of Sapphire Cove. What about the new eagles nest? RESPONSE: Mr. Torres identified the current location the environmental agencies have of an active eagles nest. For development within 660 feet of an eagles nest you have to go through what is called an eagle take permit which is done through the Fish and Wildlife Service. To get this permit there is a bunch of criteria. The environmental agencies don’t automatically put restrictions on the nest , I don’t know the code but I believe it has to be used for at least 2 or 3 seasons before it gets monitored. We used a company called Passarella & Associates and they are familiar with what is happening. We are not requesting any variance to skirt around the permit obligations. The county gets involved but not to heavily on listed species this is more a federal issue and something we deal directly with the Fish and Wildlife Service on. For the county we do a Environmental Impact Statement where we discuss what is in the area. 5. Can you provide me a resource to look at the eagles nest regulations? RESPONSE: If you look under Fish and Wildlife Service website its called an eagle take permit. I think it is a section 10 permit if I am not mistaken. 6. How many stories will Watercrest and this development be? Okay with single family or townhouses but I am not okay with 3,4,5 stories. RESPONSE: Watercrest will be 4-stories, and this development will be 4-stories. 7. Is the 212 units will that be the maximum? For me that eliminates single family homes. So 212 is not physically possible? RESPONSE: Yes, 212 is the maximum. You can always do less than the maximum density. It is physically possible just not at the same size lots as Sapphire Cove. 8. Are you looking for townhomes? RESPONSE: We are looking for a number of different scenarios townhomes is one of them. 9. What is the timeframe? What about Carman Drive the road. RESPONSE: Expect to start beginning of 2024. The road has been permitted. Fine with having a commitment in the PUD by the time of Site Development Plan we will have Carman Drive completed. 10. What about the Swamp Buggy do you own that land? RESPONSE: We do not. 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 650 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) Page 3 of 3 11. Emergency access is it coming from Rattlesnake or Lords Way or both? RESPONSE: I think both there is a couple of other roads coming in that area so there will be other interconnections. We under Hacienda Lakes, LLC have to build it from Rattlesnake to the Lord’s way it’s a commitment we negotiated with the County years ago. There was general discussion about other developments in the area. Contacting the project team and County staff was offered for any further questions about the surrounding developments. There were no further comments and the meeting concluded at approximately 5:50 p.m. 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 651 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) 9.A.3.cPacket Pg. 652Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman CARMAN DRIVE SUBDISTRICT GMPA CARMAN DRIVE 15 RPUD PL20210000623 & PL20210000624 Neighborhood Information Meeting Monday, October 25, 2021 5:00 p.m. PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET Project Size: 15.4+/- Acres Current Future Land Use: Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict Proposed Future Land Use: Carman Drive Subdistrict Current Zoning: Rural Agricultural (A) Proposed Zoning: Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Approved Density/Intensity/Uses: 23 single-family dwelling units (1.5 du/acre) and agricultural uses Proposed Density/Intensity/Uses: 212 dwelling units (13.8 du/acre), to include single-family, two-family, townhouses and/or multi-family dwelling types Project Requests: 1) (PL20210000623) a Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) for a site-specific Future Land Use text and map amendment to change the property from Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict to the Carman Drive Subdistrict to allow up to 212 dwelling units, of which 42 units will be affordable housing units for “Moderate Income” persons or households earning between 80% -120% of the Area Median Income (AMI). 2) (PL20210000623) PUD Rezone to the Carman Drive 15 Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) to allow for a maximum of 212 dwelling units, including single- family, two-family, townhouses, and multi-family dwelling types; allow for deviations; and include commitments relating to on-site affordable housing units consistent with the companion GMPA. 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 653 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) 9.A.3.cPacket Pg. 654Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Page 1 of 7 2.03.01 Agricultural Districts. A. Rural Agricultural District (A). The purpose and intent of the rural agricultural district (A) is to provide lands for agricultural, pastoral, and rural land uses by accommodating traditional agricultural, agricultural related activities and facilities, support facilities related to agricultural needs, and conservation uses. Uses that are generally considered compatible to agricultural uses that would not endanger or damage the agricultural, environmental, potable water, or wildlife resources of the County, are permissible as conditional uses in the A district. The A district corresponds to and implements the Agricultural/Rural land use designation on the future land use map of the Collier County GMP, and in some instances, may occur in the designated urban area. The maximum density permissible in the rural agricultural district within the urban mixed use district shall be guided, in part, by the density rating system contained in the future land use element of the GMP. The maximum density permissible or permitted in A district shall not exceed the density permissible under the density rating system. The maximum density permissible in the A district within the agricultural/rural district of the future land use element of the Collier County GMP shall be consistent with and not exceed the density permissible or permitted under the agricultural/rural district of the future land use element. 1. The following subsections identify the uses that are permissible by right and the uses that are allowable as accessory or conditional uses in the rural agricultural district (A). a. Permitted uses. 1.Single-family dwelling. 2.Agricultural activities, including, but not limited to: Crop raising; horticulture; fruit and nut production; forestry; groves; nurseries; ranching; beekeeping; poultry and egg production; milk production; livestock raising, and aquaculture for native species subject to Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission permits. i. The following permitted uses shall only be allowed on parcels 20 acres in size or greater: a) dairying; b) ranching; c) poultry and egg production; d) milk production; e) livestock raising; and f) animal breeding, raising, training, stabling or kenneling. ii. On parcels less than 20 acres in size, individual property owners are not precluded from the keeping of the following for personal use and not in association with a commercial agricultural activity provided there are no open feed lots: a) Fowl or poultry, not to exceed 25 in total number; and b) Horses and livestock (except for hogs) not to exceed two such animals for each acre. i. Notwithstanding the above, hog(s) may be kept for a 16 week period in preparation for showing and sale at the annual Collier County Fair and/or the Immokalee Livestock show. The following standards shall apply: a) One hog per child enrolled in a 4-H Youth Development Program, Collier County Fair Program or similar program is 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 655 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) Page 2 of 7 permitted. In no case shall there be more than 2 hogs per acre. b) Premises shall be fenced and maintained in a clean, healthful, and sanitary condition. c) Premises or roofed structure used for the sheltering, feeding, or confinement of such animals shall be setback a minimum of 30 feet from lot lines and a minimum of 100 feet from any dwelling unit on an adjacent parcel of land. d) Hog(s) shall not be returned to the property once removed for showing and/or sale. 3.Wholesale reptile breeding and raising (non-venomous), subject to the following standards: i. Minimum 20 acre parcel size; ii. Any roofed structure used for the shelter and/or feeding of such reptiles shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any lot line. 4.Wildlife management, plant and wildlife conservancies, wildlife refuges and sanctuaries. 5.Conservation uses. 6.Oil and gas exploration subject to state drilling permits and Collier County site development plan review procedures. 7.Family care facilities, subject to section 5.05.04. 8.Communications towers up to specified height, subject to section 5.05.09. 9.Essential services, as set forth in section 2.01.03. 10.Schools, public, including "Educational plants." b. Accessory uses. 1. Uses and structures that are accessory and incidental to the uses permitted as of right in the A district. 2. Farm labor housing, subject to section 5.05.03. 3. Retail sale of fresh, unprocessed agricultural products, grown primarily on the property and subject to a review of traffic circulation, parking, and safety concerns pursuant to the submission of a site improvement plan as provided for in section 10.02.03. 4. Packinghouse or similar agricultural processing of farm products produced on the property subject to the following restrictions: i. Agricultural packing, processing or similar facilities shall be located on a major or minor arterial street, or shall have access to an arterial street by a public street that does not abut properties zoned RSF-1 thru RSF-6, RMF-6, RMF-12, RMF-16, RT, VR, MH, TTRVC and PUD or are residentially used. ii. A buffer yard of not less than 150 feet in width shall be provided along each boundary of the site which abuts any residentially zoned or used property, and shall contain an Alternative B type buffer as defined within section 4.06.00. Such buffer and buffer yard shall be in lieu of front, side, or rear yards on that portion of the lot which abuts those districts and uses identified in subsection 2.03.01 A.1.b.4.i. above. 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 656 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) Page 3 of 7 iii. The facility shall emit no noxious, toxic, or corrosive dust, dirt, fumes, vapors, or gases which can cause damage to human health, to animals or vegetation, or to other forms of property beyond the lot line of the use creating the emission. iv. A site development plan shall be provided in accordance with section 10.02.03. 5. Excavation and related processing and production subject to the following criteria: i. The activity is clearly incidental to the agricultural development of the property. ii. The affected area is within a surface water management system for agricultural use as permitted by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). iii. The amount of excavated material removed from the site cannot exceed 4,000 cubic yards. Amounts in excess of 4,000 cubic yards shall require conditional use approval for earthmining, pursuant to the procedures and conditions set forth in LDC section 10.08.00 and the Administrative Code. 6. Guesthouses, subject to section 5.03.03. 7. Private boathouses and docks on lake, canal or waterway lots, subject to section 5.03.06. 8. Use of a mobile home as a temporary residence while a permanent single-family dwelling is being constructed, subject to the following: i. Receipt of a temporary use permit from the Development Services Director, pursuant to section 5.04.04, that allows for use of a mobile home while a permanent single-family dwelling is being built; ii. Assurance that the temporary use permit for the mobile home will expire at the same time of the building permit for the single-family dwelling, or upon the completion of the single-family dwelling, whichever comes first; iii. Proof that prior to the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy for the single- family dwelling, the mobile home is removed from the premises; and iv. The mobile home must be removed at the termination of the permitted period. 9. Use of a mobile home as a residence in conjunction with bona fide agricultural activities subject to the following: i. The applicant shall submit a completed application to the site development review director, or his designee, for approval of a temporary use permit to utilize a mobile home as a residence in conjunction with a bona fide commercial agricultural activity as described in subsection 2.03.01 A.1.2. Included with this application shall be a conceptual plot plan of the subject property depicting the location of the proposed mobile home; the distance of the proposed mobile home to all property lines and existing or proposed structures; and, the location, acreage breakdown, type and any intended phasing plan for the bona fide agricultural activity. ii. The receipt of any and all local, state, and federal permits required for the agricultural use and/or to place the mobile home on the subject site including, but not limited to, an agricultural clearing permit, building permit(s), ST permits, and the like. iii. The use of the mobile home shall be permitted on a temporary basis only, not to exceed the duration of the bona fide commercial agricultural activity for which the mobile home is an accessory use. The initial temporary use permit 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 657 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) Page 4 of 7 may be issued for a maximum of three years, and may, upon submission of a written request accompanied by the applicable fee, be renewed annually thereafter provided that there is continuing operation of the bona fide commercial agricultural activities. iv. The applicant utilizing, for the bona fide commercial agricultural activity, a tract of land a minimum of five acres in size. Any property lying within public road rights-of-way shall not be included in the minimum acreage calculations. v. A mobile home, for which a temporary use permit in conjunction with a bona fide commercial agricultural activity is requested, shall not be located closer than 100 feet from any county highway right-of-way line, 200 feet from any state highway right-of-way, or 500 feet from any federal highway right-of-way line. 10. Recreational facilities that serve as an integral part of a residential development and have been designated, reviewed and approved on a site development plan or subdivision master plan for that development. Recreational facilities may include but are not limited to golf course, clubhouse, community center building and tennis facilities, parks, playgrounds and playfields. c. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the rural agricultural district (A), subject to the standards and procedures established in LDC section 10.08.00 and the Administrative Code. 1. Extraction or earthmining, and related processing and production not incidental to the agricultural development of the property. NOTE: "Extraction related processing and production" is not related to "Oil extraction and related processing" as defined in this Code. 2. Sawmills. 3 .Zoo, aquarium, aviary, botanical garden, or other similar uses. 4. Hunting cabins. 5. Aquaculture for nonnative or exotic species, subject to Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission permits. 6. Wholesale reptile breeding or raising (venomous) subject to the following standards; i. Minimum 20 acre parcel size. ii. Any roofed structure used for the shelter and/or feeding of such reptiles shall be located at a minimum of 100 feet away from any lot line. 7. Churches. 8. Private landing strips for general aviation, subject to any relevant state and federal regulations. 9. Cemeteries. 10. Schools, private. 11. Child care centers and adult day care centers. 12. Collection and transfer sites for resource recovery. 13. Communication towers above specified height, subject to section 5.05.09. 14. Social and fraternal organizations. 15. Veterinary clinic. 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 658 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) Page 5 of 7 16. Group care facilities (category I and II); care units; nursing homes; assisted living facilities pursuant to § 429.02 F.S. and 58A-5 F.A.C.; and continuing care retirement communities pursuant to ch. 651 F.S. and ch. 69O-193 F.A.C., all subject to LDC section 5.05.04 when located within the Urban Designated Area on the Future Land Use Map to the Collier County Growth Management Plan. 17. Golf courses and/or golf driving ranges. 18. Oil and gas field development and production subject to state field development permits. 19. Sports instructional schools and camps. 20. Sporting and recreational camps. 21. Retail plant nurseries subject to the following conditions: i. Retail sales shall be limited primarily to the sale of plants, decorative products such as mulch or stone, fertilizers, pesticides, and other products and tools accessory to or required for the planting or maintenance of said plants. ii. Additionally, the sale of fresh produce is permissible at retail plant nurseries as an incidental use of the property as a retail plant nursery. iii. The sale of large power equipment such as lawn mowers, tractors, and the like shall not be permitted in association with a retail plant nursery in the rural agricultural district. 22. Asphaltic and concrete batch making plants subject to the following conditions: i. Asphaltic or concrete batch making plants may be permitted within the area designated agricultural on the future land use map of the future land use element of the growth management plan. ii. The minimum site area shall not be less than ten acres. iii. Principal access shall be from a street designated collector or higher classification. iv. Raw materials storage, plant location and general operations around the plant shall not be located or conducted within 100 feet of any exterior boundary. v. The height of raw material storage facilities shall not exceed a height of fifty (50) feet. vi. Hours of operation shall be limited to two (2) hours before sunrise to sunset. vii. The minimum setback from the principal road frontage shall be 150 feet for operational facilities and seventy-five (75) feet for supporting administrative offices and associated parking. viii. An earthen berm achieving a vertical height of eight feet or equivalent vegetative screen with eighty (80) percent opacity one (1) year after issuance of certificate of occupancy shall be constructed or created around the entire perimeter of the property. ix. The plant should not be located within the Greenline Area of Concern for the Florida State Park System as established by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP): within the Area of Critical State Concern as depicted on the Future Land Use Map GMP; within 1,000 feet of a natural reservation; or within any County, State or federal jurisdictional wetland area. 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 659 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) Page 6 of 7 23. Cultural, ecological, or recreational facilities that provide opportunities for educational experience, eco-tourism or agri-tourism and their related modes of transporting participants, viewers or patrons where applicable, subject to all applicable federal, state and local permits. Tour operations, such as, but not limited to airboats, swamp buggies, horses and similar modes of transportation, shall be subject to the following criteria: i. Permits or letters of exemption from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and the South Florida Water Management District shall be presented to the planning services director prior to site development plan approval. ii. The petitioner shall post the property along the entire property line with no trespassing signs approximately every 300 yards. iii. The petitioner shall utilize only trails identified and approved on the site development plan. Any existing trails shall be utilized before the establishment of new trails. iv. Motor vehicles shall be equipped with engines which include spark arrestors and mufflers designed to reduce noise. v. The maximum size of any vehicle, the number of vehicles, and the passenger capacity of any vehicle shall be determined by the board of zoning appeals during the conditional use process. vi. Motor vehicles shall be permitted to operate during daylight hours which means, one hour after sunrise to one hour before sunset. vii. Molestation of wildlife, including feeding, shall be prohibited. viii. Vehicles shall comply with state and United States Coast Guard regulations, if applicable. ix. The board of zoning appeals shall review such a conditional use for tour operations, annually. If during the review, at an advertised public hearing, it is determined by the board of zoning appeals that the tour operation is detrimental to the environment, and no adequate corrective action has been taken by the petitioner, the board of zoning appeals may rescind the conditional use. 24. Agricultural activities on parcels less than 20 acres in size: i. animal breeding, raising, training, stabling, or kenneling. ii. dairying; iii. livestock raising; iv. milk production; v. poultry and egg production; and vi. ranching. 25. The commercial production, raising or breeding of exotic animals, other than animals typically used for agricultural purposes or production, subject to the following standards: i. Minimum 20 acre parcel size. ii. Any roofed structure used for the shelter and/or feeding of such animals shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any lot line. 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 660 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) Page 7 of 7 26. Essential services, as set forth in subsection 2.01.03 G. 27. Model homes and model sales centers, subject to compliance with all other LDC requirements, to include but not limited to section 5.04.04. 28. Ancillary plants. d. Prohibited uses. 1. Owning, maintaining or operating any facility or part thereof for the following purposes is prohibited: a) Fighting or baiting any animal by the owner of such facility or any other person or entity. b) Raising any animal or animals intended to be ultimately used or used for fighting or baiting purposes. c) For purposes of this subsection, the term baiting is defined as set forth in § 828.122(2)(a), F.S., as it may be amended from time to time. Rural Agriculture Development Standards: • Minimum Lot Size: 5 acres • Minimum Lot Width: 165 feet • Maximum Building Height: 35’ • Minimum Floor Area: 550 SF • Minimum Front & Rear Yard Setback: 50’ • Minimum Side Yard Setback: 30’ 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 661 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 662 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 663 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) October 8, 2021 RE: Carman Drive Subdistrict GMPA & Carman Drive 15 PUD Rezone PL20210000623 & PL20210000624 Dear Property Owner: Please be advised that Carman Drive 15, LLC has filed two concurrent applications (PL20210000623 & PL20210000624) with Collier County. These applications are seeking approval of: (1) a Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) for a site-specific amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Map to create the Carman Drive Subdistrict; and (2) a Planned Unit Development Rezone (PUDZ). The Applications will allow for the development of up 212 dwelling units on the subject property, of which 42 dwelling units will be affordable housing units priced for households earning between 81-120% of the Area Median Income. The Carman Drive 15 Property totals 15+/- acres and is generally located northeast of the Collier Boulevard/Rattlesnake Hammock Road intersection in unincorporated Collier County, Florida, approximately ¼ mile east of Collier Boulevard and immediately west of Carman Drive (see attached location map). In compliance with the Land Development Code requirements, a Neighborhood Information Meeting will be held to provide you an opportunity to hear a presentation about this application and ask questions. The Neighborhood Information Meeting will be held on Monday, October 25, 2021, at 5:00 p.m. at Fairway Bible Church, 3855 The Lords Way, Naples, FL 34113. Attending virtually is also available via Zoom. Please visit www.zoom.us, click on “Join A Meeting” in the top right corner, and enter Meeting ID: 828 168 11801 Should you have questions prior to the meeting, please contact me directly at (239) 850-8525, or alexis.crespo@waldropengineering.com. Sincerely, WALDROP ENGINEERING, P.A. Alexis V. Crespo, AICP Senior Vice President – Planning 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 664 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 665 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) HACIENDA LAKES OF NAPLES LLC 7742 ALICO RD FORT MYERS FL 33912 COLLIER RATTLESNAKE LLC 801 ANCHOR RODE DR #206 NAPLES FL 34103 CARMAN DRIVE 15 LLC 7742 ALICO RD FORT MYERS FL 33912 AMERISITE LLC 3295 FORT CHARLES DR NAPLES FL 34102 HAMMOCK PARK APARTMENTS 7742 ALICO ROAD FT MYERS FL 33912 SWAMP BUGGY INC PO BOX 10528 NAPLES FL 34101 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO 700 UNIVERSE BLVD JUNO BEACH FL 33408 COLLIER CNTY JUNIOR DEPUTIES 3200 BAILEY LN STE 199 NAPLES FL 34105 MATSON III, DUFFIELD W=& SARAH 4960 SUNSET DR MIAMI FL 33143 TRACT L DEVELOPMENT LLC 7742 ALICO ROAD FORT MYERS FL 33912 MAROLT, JACQUELINE 3706 SAPPHIRE COVE CIR NAPLES FL 34114 LOUGHERY, STEPHEN J 3710 SAPHIRE COVE CIR NAPLES FL 34114 LORDS WAY 30 LLC 7742 ALICO ROAD FT MYERS FL 33192 ROSONE, EVA 3671 SAPPHIRE COVE CIR NAPLES FL 34114 HACIENDA LAKES CMNTY DEV DIST 707 ORCHID DR STE 100 NAPLES FL 34102 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 666 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) FOLIO Name Address City 48586001048 HACIENDA LAKES OF NAPLES LLC 7742 ALICO RD FORT MYERS 417400002 COLLIER RATTLESNAKE LLC 801 ANCHOR RODE DR #206 NAPLES 417000004 CARMAN DRIVE 15 LLC 7742 ALICO RD FORT MYERS 416800001 AMERISITE LLC 3295 FORT CHARLES DR NAPLES 416720000 HAMMOCK PARK APARTMENTS 7742 ALICO ROAD FT MYERS 418400807 SWAMP BUGGY INC PO BOX 10528 NAPLES 418400603 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO 700 UNIVERSE BLVD JUNO BEACH 418400409 COLLIER CNTY JUNIOR DEPUTIES 3200 BAILEY LN STE 199 NAPLES 418400001 MATSON III, DUFFIELD W=& SARAH 4960 SUNSET DR MIAMI 417760001 TRACT L DEVELOPMENT LLC 7742 ALICO ROAD FORT MYERS 31374001681 MAROLT, JACQUELINE 3706 SAPPHIRE COVE CIR NAPLES 31374001665 LOUGHERY, STEPHEN J 3710 SAPHIRE COVE CIR NAPLES 31374001649 LORDS WAY 30 LLC 7742 ALICO ROAD FT MYERS 31374000828 ROSONE, EVA 3671 SAPPHIRE COVE CIR NAPLES 31374000129 HACIENDA LAKES CMNTY DEV DIST 707 ORCHID DR STE 100 NAPLES 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 667 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) State Zip FL 33912 FL 34103 FL 33912 FL 34102 FL 33912 FL 34101 FL 33408 FL 34105 FL 33143 FL 33912 FL 34114 FL 34114 FL 33192 FL 34114 FL 34102 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 668 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) Sign Post Photo & Affidavit 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 669 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) SIGN POSTING INSTRUCTIONS (CHAPTER 8, COLLIER COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT) A zoning sign(s) must be posted by the petitioner or the petitioner’s agent on the parcel for a minimum of fifteen (15) calendar days in advance of the first public hearing and said sign(s) must be maintained by the petitioner or the petitioner’s agent through the Board of County Commissioners Hearing. Below are general guidelines for signs, however these guidelines should not be construed to supersede any requirement of the LDC. For specific sign requirements, please refer to the Administrative Code, Chapter 8 E. 1.The sign(s) must be erected in full view of the public, not more than five (5) feet from the nearest street right-of-way or easement. 2.The sign(s) must be securely affixed by nails, staples, or other means to a wood frame or to a wood panel and then fastened securely to a post, or other structure. The sign may not be affixed to a tree or other foliage. 3.The petitioner or the petitioner’s agent must maintain the sign(s) in place, and readable condition until the requested action has been heard and a final decision rendered. If the sign(s) is destroyed, lost, or rendered unreadable, the petitioner or the petitioner’s agent must replace the sign(s - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - --- - - - - -- AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED AUTHORITY, PERSONALLY APPEARED WHO ON OATH SAYS THAT HE/SHE HAS POSTED PROPER NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 10.03.00 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ON THE PARCEL COVERED IN PETITION NUMBER : SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT OR AGENT STREET OR P.O. BOX NAME (TYPED OR PRINTED) CITY, STATE ZIP # STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing instrument was sworn to and subscribed before me this day of , 20 , by , personally known to me or who produced as identification and who did/did not take an oath. Signature of Notary Public Printed Name of Notary Public My Commission Expires: (Stamp with serial number) Rev. 3/4/2015 NOTE: AFTER THE SIGN HAS BEEN POSTED, THIS AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE SHOULD BE RETURNED NO LATER THAN TEN (10) WORKING DAYS BEFORE THE FIRST HEARING DATE TO THE ASSIGNED PLANNER. Alexis Crespo Alexis Crespo PL20210000623 & PL20210000624 28100 Bonita Grande Drive, Suite 305 Bonita Springs, FL 34135 XXXXXXXXXXXX PINELLAS April 22 Alexis Crespo FL Driver's License xxxxxx Sandra K. Fabrizio March 5, 2023 21nd 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 670 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 671 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD) Collier BlvdCollier BlvdR a t t l e s n a k e H a m m o c k R dRattlesnake H a m m o c k R d Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA,USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Subject Parcel 0 0.2 0.4 0.60.1 Miles ¯Carman Drive SubdistrictAerial Location Map 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 672 Attachment: Att B - Carman Drive Subdistrict PUDZ CCPC Package (22062 : PL20210000624 - Carman Drive 15 RPUD)SIGN LOCATION 05/19/2022 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.4 Item Summary: ** This item has been continued from the May 5, 2022 CCPC Meeting **PL20210000660 - Affordable Housing Initiatives GMPA - A Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners proposing County-initiated amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 89-05, as amended, to address housing initiatives to allow affordable housing by right in certain commercial zoning districts; to increase density for affordable housing; to establish a Strategic Opportunity Site Subdistrict; and to increase density for affordable housing projects along Collier Area Transit routes; specifically amending the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map; Golden Gate City Sub-Element of Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element and Future Land Use Map; the Immokalee Area Master Plan Element and Future Land Use Map; and adding a policy to the Transportation Element pertaining to affordable housing along transit routes; and furthermore directing transmittal of these amendments to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. [Coordinator: MIchele R. Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner] Meeting Date: 05/19/2022 Prepared by: Title: Planner, Principal – Zoning Name: Michele Mosca 04/13/2022 5:14 PM Submitted by: Title: – Zoning Name: Mike Bosi 04/13/2022 5:14 PM Approved By: Review: Planning Commission Diane Lynch Review item Completed 04/18/2022 2:53 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 04/18/2022 4:43 PM Zoning James Sabo Additional Reviewer Completed 04/18/2022 5:22 PM Community & Human Services Jacob LaRow Additional Reviewer Completed 04/19/2022 6:19 AM Zoning Mike Bosi Zoning Director Review Completed 04/25/2022 2:02 PM Growth Management Department James C French GMD Deputy Dept Head Completed 04/26/2022 1:40 PM Planning Commission Ray Bellows Meeting Pending 05/19/2022 9:00 AM 9.A.4 Packet Pg. 673 Page 1 of 10 STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT/ZONING DIVISION, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION HEARING DATE: May 5, 2022 RE: PETITION PL20210000660, COLLIER HOUSING PLAN AFFORDABLE HOUSING INITIATIVES GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT (GMPA) [TRANSMITAL HEARING] ELEMENTS: FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT, GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN ELEMENT/GOLDEN GATE CITY SUB-ELEMENT, IMMOKALEE AREA MASTER PLAN ELEMENT, TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT APPLICANT/OWNER: Collier County Real Property Management Division, 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101 Naples, FL 34112 CONSULTANT: Laura DeJohn, AICP Johnson Engineering Inc. 2122 Johnson Street Fort Myers, FL 33901 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: This county-initiated amendment petition is not applicable to a single location. REQUESTED ACTION: This GMPA petition consists of multiple amendments. Three existing subdistricts in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) are amended (Mixed Use and Interchange Activity Centers, Commercial Mixed Use), three new subdistricts are established in the FLUE and on the countywide FLUM-Future Land Use Map (Conversion of Commercial by Right, Strategic Opportunity Sites, Transit Oriented Development). Also, three subdistricts are added to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan’s (GGAMP) Golden Gate City Sub-Element (GGCS-E) and FLUM (Commercial Mixed Use by Right, Conversion of Commercial by Right, Transit Oriented Development) and one subdistrict is added to the Immokalee Area Master Plan (IAMP) and FLUM (Transit Oriented Development). Also, related policy additions are included to list the names of the new subdistricts and the one subdistrict with a modified name. More explanation of the proposed amendments is provided later in this Report. The proposed text and map amendments are depicted on Resolution Exhibit A’s. 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 674 Attachment: Transmittal CCPC Staff Report HsgPlan5.6.22 (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Initiatives GMPA) Page 2 of 10 PURPOSE: The primary propose of this GMPA petition is to promote the development of housing that is affordable - by providing additional opportunities and incentives. BACKGROUND, DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ANALYSIS: The Urban Land Institute (ULI) conducted an affordable housing study and subsequently prepared a Community Housing Plan. In October 2017, the BCC accepted the Community Housing Plan that included several initiatives intended to increase opportunities for housing that is affordable. These initiatives require regulatory changes. In October 2018, the Board of County Commissioners directed staff to move forward with these initiatives. The County contracted with Johnson Engineering, Inc. (JEI) to prepare the necessary GMPAs. Housing staff (Community and Human Services Division) worked with consultants, stakeholders, the development industry, non- profit agencies, and various other interested parties for a period of about twelve months. JEI submitted the GMPAs to the County in December 2020, and staff has modified them into final form (proper GMP format and terminology, added parameters and some standards, other modifications). Each initiative and related GMPA is identified below. Each GMPA either modifies an existing subdistrict or establishes a new one. For each GMPA, a related Land Development Code Amendment (LDCA) is being drafted with the intention for them to be heard at the Adoption hearings for the GMPA as a companion item. [For additional and detailed background information, please see the first attachment to this Staff Report: County Initiated GMPA Application – Housing Plan GMPA (Johnson Engineering, Inc.).] The ULI Study/Community Housing Plan included data that broadly supports the initiatives (GMPAs). Additionally, as staff has drafted the specific provisions of the GMPAs with some details, staff is in process of gathering additional, more detailed data (inventories of applicable sites); staff will present this data and/or a summary of it, at the CCPC hearing. Two of the subdistricts are implemented by right (no rezone required - thus no public notice process, no public hearings, no opportunity for public input). There are three advantages (to the developer) of allowing development of housing that is affordable by right rather than requiring a rezone: certainty of outcome, less expense, less time (to get through the process). Likewise, the certainty of outcome is an advantage for proponents of housing that is affordable – with possible exception of those that live or own property nearby. There is one disadvantage to nearby residents and property owners: no opportunity for public input (to attempt to sway hearing bodies to support the project, deny the project, or modify the project – e.g. limit hours of operation, prohibit certain uses, increase development standards). Owners of nearby properties would have, in performing their due diligence prior to purchase of their property, been able to determine the uses and development standards permitted on the nearby Commercial zoned property(s). By introducing residential uses to these Commercial zoned properties, the hours of activity change since most commercial uses – whether office, retail, personal service, restaurant, etc. – have established hours of operation outside of which there is minimal or no impacts generated from the site (traffic, “people” noise, deliveries, etc.). Residential uses introduce extended hours of activity. Initiative 2: Streamlining conversion of commercial zoning to residential zoning when providing for housing that is affordable [Streamline Commercial to Mixed Use Residential Conversions]. 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 675 Attachment: Transmittal CCPC Staff Report HsgPlan5.6.22 (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Initiatives GMPA) Page 3 of 10 COMMERCIAL MIXED USE BY RIGHT SUBDISTRICT, and CONVERSION OF COMMERCIAL BY RIGHT SUBDISTRICT This initiative is implemented by two separate GMPAs, the first to modify an existing subdistrict, the second to establish a new subdistrict – discussed further below. The first amends the existing (but never used) Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict in the FLUE, in two ways. The existing subdistrict is a provision to allow mixed use development (mix of commercial and residential) on properties zoned C-1 thru C-3 (Commercial Professional and General Office District, Commercial Convenience District, Commercial Intermediate District) and PUDs (Planned Unit Development) that allow no greater than C-1 thru C-3 uses, by right. First, mostly clean-up changes are proposed with relatively minor effects. These revisions are to modify the title to add the words “by right” (it is designed to be by right but the subdistrict did not explicitly state this), delete reference to the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict (there are no qualifying properties there), add reference to an LDC provision previously created to implement this Subdistrict, increase the affordable housing density bonus from eight to twelve DU/A, dwelling units per acre (to reflect a previous GMP amendment that increased that density bonus provision in the Density Rating System from eight to twelve DU/A). Second, this Subdistrict is modified to add a provision to allow mixed use development on properties zoned C-4 and C-5 (General Commercial District, Heavy Commercial District) and by right. Additional changes to that expanded Subdistrict include increasing density in some areas, requiring all dwelling units to be housing that is affordable, and capping building height at fifty feet in the C-4 district (whereas C-4 permits 75 feet). Finally, this Subdistrict is added to the GGCS-E for properties zoned C-1 thru C-5 and deemed “consistent by policy.” Staff’s analysis yields this second modification would impact a total of only 6.42 acres yielding a maximum of approximately 103 DUs. (Please see the attached Commercial MUS C-4 & C-5 Inventory; Consistent by Policy Maps: FLUE-9, FLUE-10, FLUE-11, FLUE-13; countywide FLUM; GGCS-E FLUM.) This GMPA is not subject to the Density Rating System in the FLUE or GGCS-E and is implemented by right (no rezone is required) and the related LDC provision (pending LDCA). Please see the below tables identifying the changes proposed. Table: Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict Changes Summary – A. Modify for C-1 thru C-3 Provision Existing Proposed Subdistrict Title Commercial Mixed Use Commercial Mixed Use by Right Applicable Subdistricts URF, UCF, UR UCF, UR LDC Reference Establish implementing LDC provision within 1 year Section 4.02.38 Affordable Housing Density Bonus 8 DU/A (from 3-11 DU/A) 12 DU/A (from 3-15 DU/A) PUD = Planned Unit Development TDR = Transfer of Development Rights URF = Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict UCF = Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict UR = Urban Residential Subdistrict DU/A = Dwelling Units per Acre Table: Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict Changes Summary – B. Expand for C-4 and C-5 Eligible Zoning C-4 and C-5 deemed “Consistent by Policy” Development Standards Per commercial zoning district on the parcel except C-4 capped at 50 feet height Maximum Density & Affordability 16 DU/A, all DUs must be Housing that is Affordable (UCF, UR) Maximum Portion of Project as Residential 75% URF = Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict UCF = Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict UR = Urban Residential Subdistrict DU/A = Dwelling Units per Acre 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 676 Attachment: Transmittal CCPC Staff Report HsgPlan5.6.22 (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Initiatives GMPA) Page 4 of 10 The second GMPA for Initiative 2 is to establish the new Convers ion of Commercial by Right Subdistrict in the FLUE and GGCS-E to allow residential-only development with housing that is affordable on properties zoned Commercial (C-1 thru C-5) and deemed “consistent by policy.” This GMPA is not subject to the Density Rating System in the FLUE or GGCS-E and is implemented by right (no rezone required) and related LDC provision (pending LDCA). Two areas are excluded - properties within the boundaries of the East Naples Community Development Plan (see attached map of ENCDP study area) and within the Downtown Commercial Center Subdistrict (see attached Golden Gate City FLUM) – as the intent of this subdistrict is at odds with provisions for these areas. Please see the below table that provides a summary of the major components of this proposed Subdistrict. Table: Conversion of Commercial by Right Subdistrict Summary Eligible Zoning C-1 thru C-5 deemed “consistent by policy” Development Standards Per commercial zoning district on the parcel except C-4 capped at 50 feet height Affordability All DUs must be Housing that is Affordable – commitment by Agreement required Maximum Density 16 DU/A (URF, UCF, UR) Public Facility Impacts Analysis Comparative analysis required to demonstrate proposed residential project has same or less impacts than highest intensity commercial use allowed (vehicle trips, water & wastewater) Excluded Areas Within boundaries of East Naples Community Development Plan (generally, along US 41 East corridor and north to approximately Davis Blvd., and 1 mile east of Collier Blvd. west to the CRA boundary), and Downtown Commercial Center Subdistrict in Golden Gate City Sub-Element (most of the Golden Gate Parkway corridor except for the Mixed Use Activity Center) CRA = Community Redevelopment Area (Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay on countywide FLUM) Initiative 3: Increasing density within Activity Centers from 16 units per acre to 25 units per acre when providing for housing that is affordable [Incentivize Mixed Income Residential Housing in Future and Redeveloped Activity Centers]. MIXED USE ACTIVITY CENTER and INTERCHANGE ACTIVITY CENTER SUBDISTRICTS This GMPA will modify the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict and the Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict in the FLUE to allow density up to 25 DU/A when providing a mixed income residential project (mix of market rate housing and housing that is affordable) in accordance with provisions to be adopted into the LDC. This density may increase may result in more mixed use developments which is one of the purposes of Activity Centers. However, for the Interchange Activity Centers, which allow some commerce and industry uses that need proximity to the interstate highway system, this creates a competition between GMP objectives: industry vs. mixed use development and housing that is affordable. This GMPA is not subject to the Density Rating System in the FLUE and is implemented by rezone and related LDC provision (pending LDCA). Please see the table on following page identifying the specific density changes proposed. 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 677 Attachment: Transmittal CCPC Staff Report HsgPlan5.6.22 (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Initiatives GMPA) Page 5 of 10 Table: Mixed Use and Interchange Activity Center Subdistricts Changes Summary EXISTING PROPOSED MIXED USE Activity Center Subdistrict MIXED USE Activity Center Subdistrict Residential Only Residential Only Location Eligible Density (DU/A) Location Eligible Density (DU/A) Not in URF or UCF Subdistricts 16 Not in UCF or URF 16//25 per Mixed-Income Housing Program URF 1.5/2.5 with TDRs URF 1.5/2.5 with TDRs//25 per Mixed-Income HP UCF 4 except per DRS (AHDB of 12 du/a) and B/GTRO) UCF 4 except per DRS (AHDB of 12 du/a) and B/GTRO)//25 per Mixed-Income Housing Program MIXED USE Activity Center Subdistrict MIXED USE Activity Center Subdistrict Mixed Use Mixed Use Location Eligible Density (DU/A) Location Eligible Density (DU/A) Not in CHHA or URF 16 Not in CHHA or URF 16//25 per Mixed-Income Housing Program CHHA 4 except B/GTRO CHHA 4 except B/GTRO//25 per Mixed-Income HP URF 1.5/2.5 with TDRs URF 1.5/2.5 with TDRs//25 per Mixed-Income HP INTERCHANGE Activity Center Subdistrict INTERCHANGE Activity Center Subdistrict Residential Only AND Mixed Use Residential Only AND Mixed Use Location Eligible Density (DU/A) Location Eligible Density (DU/A) Not in URF 16 Not in URF 16//25 per Mixed-Income Housing Program URF 1.5/2.5 with TDRs URF 1.5/2.5 with TDRs//25 per Mixed-Income HP CHHA = Coastal High Hazard Area TDR = Transfer of Development Rights HP = Housing Program DRS = Density Rating System AHDB = Affordable Housing Density Bonus B/GTRO = Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 678 Attachment: Transmittal CCPC Staff Report HsgPlan5.6.22 (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Initiatives GMPA) Page 6 of 10 Initiative 4: Creation of Strategic Opportunity Sites as an identified subdistrict within the GMP to allow for the development of a mixed use development that provides for residential density up to 25 units per acre which is integrated with non-residential land uses with a high degree of employment opportunities, such as corporate headquarters or business campuses [Create a Strategic Opportunity Sites Designation Process and Allow for Increased Density]. STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY SITES SUBDISTRICT This GMPA will establish the new Strategic Opportunity Sites Subdistrict in the FLUE that provides for mixed use projects that include “qualified target industry business uses” as defined in Chapter 288.106, Florida Statutes, and a mix of market rate housing and housing that is affordable up to 25 DU/A. Also, support commercial uses are allowed. This GMPA is not subject to the Density Rating System in the FLUE and is implemented by rezone and related LDC provision (pending LDCA). Please see the below table that provides a summary of the major components of this proposed Subdistrict. Table: Strategic Opportunity Sites Subdistrict Summary Minimum Project Size 10 acres Access Requirement Arterial Road Required Zoning PUD Required Uses Qualified Target Industry Businesses (QTIB) and Housing that is Affordable Optional Uses Support commercial uses (C-1 thru C-3) and market rate housing Minimum/Maximum Density 10/25 DU/A – based on total site acreage Density Calculations Base density: 4 DU/A. Additional density (up to 25): requires Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement. Affordability requirement: min. 20% of DUs at Low and/or Very Low income levels. Density bonus is doubled when dedicated for Low or Very Low income levels. Mixed Use Requirements & Limitations QTIB: min. 40%/max. 80% Residential: min. 20%/max. 60% Support commercial: max. of 20% Other provisions Compatibility, integration of uses, ensure percentage thresholds are met min. = minimum max. = maximum 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 679 Attachment: Transmittal CCPC Staff Report HsgPlan5.6.22 (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Initiatives GMPA) Page 7 of 10 Initiative 5: Increasing density opportunities along bus/transit lines through the creation of Transit Oriented Development (TOD) up to a maximum of 25 units per acre [Increase Density Along Transit Corridors]. TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT SUBDISTRICT This GMPA will establish the new Transit Oriented Development Subdistrict in the FLUE, IAMP and GGCS-E that will provide for increased residential density, with or without housing that is affordable, along transit (CAT, Collier Area Transit) corridors for qualifying projects. The intent of this provision is both to increase housing that is affordable and increase CAT ridership thus increase its viability. Also, a new policy is added to the Transportation Element referencing the new Subdistrict. This subdistrict is not applicable to certain portions of the Urban area as its purpose is at odds with provisions for those areas. (Please see the below table for those subdistrict names and the attached FLUMs to see the location of those areas.) This GMPA is not subject to the Density Rating System and is implemented by rezone and related LDC provision (pending LDCA). Please see the below table that provides a summary of the major components of this proposed Subdistrict. This Subdistrict is not consistent with, nor is it required to be, the definition of “Transit-oriented development” found in Florida Statutes, Ch. 163.3164 ”Community Planning Act; definitions,” as it does not provide for mixed use development. Table: Transit Oriented Development Subdistrict Summary Locational Requirements Locational Exclusions UCF & URF in FLUE; Downtown Center Commercial Subdistrict in GGCS-E; Commercial Mixed-Use Subdistrict & Recreational Tourist Subdistrict in IAMP Eligible Market Rate Density 13 DU/A max. Housing that is Affordable Density Bonus 12 DU/A max. Maximum Density 25 DU/A DU Type Multi-Family only Design Standards Per those in proposed LDCA; compact and pedestrian oriented Assuming this GMP amendment petition 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 amendments at time of adoption hearings with the implementing LDC Amendments. Environmental Impacts: These are not site-specific amendments so impacts cannot be specifically determined. However, natural resource protection provisions in the LDC and GMP remain in effect. Historical and Archeological Impacts: These are not site-specific amendments so impacts cannot be specifically determined. However, historical and archeological protection provisions in the LDC and GMP remain in effect. Public Facilities Impacts, including Transportation: As these are not site-specific amendments, eligible residential densities vary, and the extent to which the development community will utilize these provisions is unknown, it is difficult to determine the impacts upon public infrastructure. However, three of the amendments require a rezone which includes infrastructure impacts analysis and consideration via the public hearing process. One of the two “by right” provisions includes an infrastructure impacts comparative 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 680 Attachment: Transmittal CCPC Staff Report HsgPlan5.6.22 (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Initiatives GMPA) Page 8 of 10 analysis to demonstrate no increase in impacts (for roads, water, wastewater). The other “by right” provision could impact less than a total ten acres, based upon staff analysis. 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 s o long as methodologies are professionally accepted. 3. The comprehensive plan shall be based upon permanent and seasonal population estimates and projections, which shall either be those published by the Office of Economic and Demographic Research or generated by the local government based upon a professionally acceptable methodology. The plan must be based on at least the minimum amount of land required to accommodate the medium projections as published by the Office of Economic and Demographic Research for at least a 10-year planning period unless otherwise limited under s. 380.05, including related rules of the Administration Commission. Absent physical limitations on population growth, population projections for each municipality, and the unincorporated area within a county must, at a minimum, be reflective of each area’s proportional share of the total county population and the total county population growth. Section 163.3177(6)(a)2.: 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. 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 681 Attachment: Transmittal CCPC Staff Report HsgPlan5.6.22 (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Initiatives GMPA) Page 9 of 10 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). FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS: • These are not site-specific amendments, eligible residential densities vary, and the extent to which the development community will utilize these provisions is unknown, thus it is difficult to determine the impacts upon public infrastructure. However, three of the amendments require a rezone which includes infrastructure impacts analysis and consideration via the public hearing process. One of the two “by right” provisions includes an infrastructure impacts comparative analysis to demonstrate no increase in impacts (for roads, water, wastewater). The other “by right” provision could impact less than ten acres, based upon staff analysis. • These are not site-specific amendments, so it is difficult to determine the impacts of these amendments upon environmental resources and cultural resources resulting from these amendments. However, natural resource protection and historical and archeological protection provisions in the LDC remain in effect. • The primary purpose of these amendments is to provide additional opportunities and incentives for [the private sector to provide] much needed housing that is affordable, as identified in the Collier Housing Plan and as directed by the Board of County Commissioners. Additionally, one of the amendments (TOD) may increase the viability of the CAT bus system; one may also result in the development of target industry uses (SOS); and some may also result in more mixed use developments (SOS, Activity Centers, CMUS by Right). 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 682 Attachment: Transmittal CCPC Staff Report HsgPlan5.6.22 (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Initiatives GMPA) Page 10 of 10 • Regarding the Commercial Mixed Use by Right Subdistrict (C-4 and C-5 zoning) and Conversion of Conversion Zoning by Right Subdistrict, there is some concern about the lack of opportunity for public involvement as neither provision requires a rezone thus no public hearing process. • Regarding the increased density in the Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict, there is some concern that the amendment creates a competition between different GMP objectives: some commerce and industry uses that need proximity to the interstate highway system vs. mixed use development and housing that is affordable. 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. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: The County Attorney’s office reviewed the Staff report on April 13, 2022. The criteria for GMP amendments to the Future Land Use Element are in Sections 163.3177(1)(f) and 163.3177(6)(a)2, Florida Statutes. [HFAC] STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PL20210000660 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. NOTE: After the County Attorney’s Office approval of the Resolution with Exhibit A’s and the legal advertisement being approved for this petition, it was discovered that text additions are needed for clarification in the FLUE, IAMP and GGCS-E. First, to clarify that density that is achieved by right cannot be combined with density achieved by rezone (such a provision already exists in the IAMP). Second, to clarify that these Subdistricts cannot be used in combination, e.g. cannot use TOD and SOS. Attachments: A) Resolution with Exhibit A’s B) Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product 021621- 1351 C) Countywide Future Land Use Map D) Golden Gate City Future Land Use Map E) Immokalee Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map F) East Naples Community Development Plan boundary map G) Commercial MUS C-4 & C-5 Inventory H) Consistent by Policy Maps: FLUE-9, FLUE-10, FLUE-11, FLUE-12, FLUE-13 I) Mixed Use and Interchange Activity Center Maps (1-14, 16-18, 20) Prepared by: David Weeks, AICP, Senior Project Manager, Nova Engineering & Environmental LLC, Collier County Growth Management Department contract employee 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 683 Attachment: Transmittal CCPC Staff Report HsgPlan5.6.22 (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Initiatives GMPA) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 684 Attachment: Resolution & Exhibit A_ 041122 (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Initiatives GMPA) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 685 Attachment: Resolution & Exhibit A_ 041122 (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Initiatives GMPA) 1 of 17 Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted. 04/02/22 dw/mrm EXHIBIT A FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** *** GOAL: *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** *** OBJECTIVE 1: *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** *** Policy 1.5 The URBAN Future Land Use Designation shall include Future Land Use Districts and Subdistricts for: *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** *** A. URBAN - MIXED USE DISTRICT *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** *** 13. Commercial Mixed Use by Right Subdistrict *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** *** 26. Conversion of Commercial by Right Subdistrict 27. Strategic Opportunity Site Subdistrict 28. Transit Oriented Development Subdistrict *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** *** FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION SECTION I. URBAN DESIGNATION *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** *** A. Urban Mixed Use District *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** *** 13. Commercial Mixed Use by Right Subdistrict: The purpose of this Subdistrict is to encourage the development and re-development of commercially zoned properties with a mix of residential units 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 pedestrian- scale, pedestrian oriented, and interconnected with abutting projects – whether commercial or residential. Within one year of the effective date of regulation establishing this Subdistrict, the LDC shall be amended, as necessary, to implement the provisions of this Subdistrict. 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 686 Attachment: Resolution & Exhibit A_ 041122 (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Initiatives GMPA) 2 of 17 Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted. 04/02/22 dw/mrm a. For properties zoned C-1, C-2 and C-3, as identified in the LDC, projects Projects 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-1 through C-3 zoning districts. 2. Commercial uses and development standards shall be in accordance with the commercial zoning district on the subject 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 within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, but within the Coastal High Hazard Area, density shall be limited to four (4) dwelling units per acre; density in excess of three (3) dwelling units per acre must be comprised of affordable 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 (16) dwelling units per acre; density in excess of three (3) dwelling units per acre and up to eleven (11) fifteen (15) dwelling units per acre must be comprised of affordable 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 (70%) 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. 6. All development shall comply with applicable portions of Section 4.02.38, of the Land Development Code, Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended. b. For properties zoned C-4 and C-5, as identified in the LDC, projects utilizing this Subdistrict shall comply with the following standards and criteria: 1. This Subdistrict is applicable to the C-4 and C-5 zoning districts on properties found to be “consistent by policy” as identified in FLUE Policies 5.11 through 5.13 and depicted on Maps FLUE-9 through FLUE-15 in the Future Land Use Map series. 2. Commercial uses shall be in accordance with the commercial zoning district on the subject property. Development standards shall be no less restrictive than those for the commercial zoning district on the subject property and development in the C-4 District shall not exceed a zoned height of fifty (50) feet. 3. Residential density is calculated based upon the gross project acreage and shall not exceed sixteen (16) dwelling units per acre. All residential units must be housing that is affordable. 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-five percent (75%) of the gross building square footage and acreage of the project. In the case of a mixed-use building, 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 687 Attachment: Resolution & Exhibit A_ 041122 (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Initiatives GMPA) 3 of 17 Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted. 04/02/22 dw/mrm building square footage devoted to residential uses shall not exceed seventy-five percent (75%) of the gross building square footage. 5. Street, pedestrian pathway and bike lane interconnections with abutting properties, where possible and practicable, are encouraged. 6. All development shall comply with applicable portions of Section 4.02.38, of the Land Development Code, Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** *** 26. Conversion of Commercial by Right Subdistrict: The purpose of this Subdistrict is to encourage the development and re-development of certain commercially zoned properties within portions of the Urban designated area with housing that is affordable. Projects utilizing this Subdistrict shall be allowed up to sixteen (16) residential units per gross acre, subject to the following: a. The properties are within the Urban Mixed Use District but are not within the boundaries of the East Naples Community Development Plan. b. The properties are zoned Commercial. c. The properties have been found consistent by policy, as provided for in Policies 5.11 through 5.13 and depicted on Maps FLUE-9 through FLUE-15 in the Future Land Use Map series. d. Development standards shall be no less restrictive than those for the commercial zoning district on the subject property and development in the C-4 District shall not exceed an zoned height of fifty (50) feet. e. All residential units must be housing that is affordable. f. There is a commitment by Agreement approved by the County Manager and County Attorney, or respective designees, that all units shall be maintained affordable in accordance with Section 2.07.02., and pursuant to Section 4.02.40, of the Land Development Code, Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended. g. A public facility impacts comparative analysis for vehicle trips, water consumption and wastewater generation between the proposed project and the highest intensity permitted use within the commercial zoning district on the subject property, has been submitted, and approved by staff, that demonstrates the proposed project would have the same or lesser impacts for all three public facilities. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** *** 27. Strategic Opportunity Site Subdistrict The Strategic Opportunity Site Subdistrict provides for mixed income residential use in conjunction with qualified target industry business uses and supporting commercial uses. This mix of an employment center and housing for potential employees within the same development has a mutual benefit and may benefit users of the County’s transportation system by potentially reducing the total vehicle miles traveled. Each Strategic Opportunity Site project shall be designed as a mixed use development where landscaped areas, outdoor spaces and internal interconnectivity provide for buffering, usable open space, and a network of pathways for the enjoyment of the employees, residents, and patrons of the project. Development in this Subdistrict shall comply with the following: 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 688 Attachment: Resolution & Exhibit A_ 041122 (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Initiatives GMPA) 4 of 17 Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted. 04/02/22 dw/mrm a. The project site must be a minimum of ten (10) acres in size. b. The site must be abutting, and have direct principal access to, a road classified as an arterial road in the Transportation Element. Direct principal access is defined as an internal project roadway connection to the arterial road. c. The site must be rezoned to PUD. d. The site shall be a mixed use development including residential uses and qualified target industry business uses and may include support commercial uses. e. Qualified target industry business uses are as defined in Chapter 288.106, Florida Statutes. f. Qualified target industry business uses shall comprise a minimum of forty percent (40%) and a maximum of eighty percent (80%) of the total acreage of the site. A minimum of eighty percent (80%) of the total building square feet, exclusive of residential development, shall be devoted to target industry uses. g. Support commercial uses allowed are those uses in the C-1 through C-3 Zoning Districts that provide support services to the target industries such as general office, banks, fitness centers, personal and professional services, medical, financial and convenience sales and services, computer related businesses and services, employee training, technical conferencing, day care center, restaurants and corporate and government offices. h. Support commercial uses shall be allowed to comprise a maximum of twenty percent (20%) of the total acreage of the site. A maximum of twenty percent (20%) of the total building square feet, exclusive of residential development, shall be devoted to support commercial uses. i. Residential development shall comprise a minimum of twenty percent (20%) and a maximum of sixty percent (60%) of the total acreage of the site. The residential component may provide for a mix of single family and multi-family units or provide for multi-family units only. j. Residential development shall provide for housing that is affordable in the following manner: 1. Base density shall be four (4) units per acre and an Affordable Housing Density Bonus (AHDB) agreement, in accordance with LDC Section 2.06.00, is required in order to exceed this base density. 2. A minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the total units must be committed as affordable housing for either the Low or Very Low household income levels or mix of those income levels, as provided in LDC section 2.06.03.A. All affordable housing density bonuses shall be doubled when dedicated to the Low or Very Low income levels. 3. Maximum density shall not exceed twenty-five (25) units per gross acre. 4. Minimum density shall be ten (10) dwelling units per gross acre. 5. Residential density is calculated based on the total site acreage. 6. Residential development is not subject to the Density Rating System. 7. Each phase of the project that proposes residential development must provide for the ratio of market rate housing units to housing units that are affordable, as stated within the AHDB agreement. k. When the site abuts residentially zoned land, residential development shall be located proximate to such abutting residentially zoned land, where feasible. 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 689 Attachment: Resolution & Exhibit A_ 041122 (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Initiatives GMPA) 5 of 17 Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted. 04/02/22 dw/mrm 1. When qualified target industry business uses or support commercial uses on the site are adjacent to any property occupied by, or zoned to allow, single family dwellings, the setback along the common boundary shall be equal to the proposed zoned building height and a 15-foot Type “C” buffer shall be provided. l. Residential uses shall be integrated, and made compatible, with non-residential uses in the development through vertical and/or horizontal mixed-use buildings, landscaping, buffering, open space, architectural embellishments and through pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular (multi-modal) interconnections. 1. The PUD shall include development standards to ensure that residential uses are integrated with the non-residential uses. m. The PUD shall include development standards for non-residential uses that are no less stringent than those in the C-5, Heavy Commercial, Zoning District. Development standards for residential uses shall be those in the residential zoning district closest to the density proposed. n. The PUD shall include a mechanism to ensure the minimum density is developed and the minimum percentage of target industry uses are developed. This might include specifying the timing of developing a minimum square foot of target industry uses in relation to the first Certificate of Occupancy for dwelling units. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** *** 28. Transit Oriented Development Subdistrict The purpose of this subdistrict is to promote high-density residential development along existing or proposed transit routes of the Collier Area Transit (CAT) system, known as Transit Oriented Development (TOD), within a portion of the Urban Mixed Use District. TODs are further described in the Land Development Code. As stated in Transportation Element Policy 12.10, TODs may increase transit ridership thereby reducing single occupancy trips and vehicle miles travelled. A TOD project is eligible for, but not entitled to, thirteen (13) dwelling units per gross acre, subject to paragraphs a. through f., below. The Density Rating System is not applicable to TODs. A TOD that includes housing that is affordable is eligible for, but not entitled to, up to an additional twelve (12) dwelling units per acre subject to paragraphs a. through h., below. a. The TOD must be located along an existing or proposed CAT fixed route. b. At least one half (1/2) of the proposed dwelling units must be located within one quarter (¼) mile of an existing CAT stop, shelter or station or the TOD shall commit to providing said facility within ¼ mile of those units prior to, or concurrent with, the first residential Certificate of Occupancy. c. The TOD must comply with the transit oriented development design standards contained in Chapter 4 of the LDC. d. The project site is not within the Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict or Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict. e. Only residential multi-family dwelling units are allowed. f. The TOD must be compact and pedestrian oriented. g. There is a commitment by Ordinance or Agreement approved by the Board of County Commissioners that all units shall be maintained affordable in accordance with LDC Section 2.07.02. and pursuant to LDC Section 4.02.42. h. The maximum density shall not exceed twenty-five (25) dwelling units per gross acre. 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 690 Attachment: Resolution & Exhibit A_ 041122 (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Initiatives GMPA) 6 of 17 Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted. 04/02/22 dw/mrm *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** *** C. Urban Commercial District (Page 56) This District is intended to accommodate almost all new commercial zoning; a variety of residential uses, including higher densities for properties not located within the Urban Coastal Fringe or Urban Residential Fringe Subdistricts; and a variety of non-residential uses. 1. Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** *** 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 sixteen (16) residential units per gross acre may be permitted. Development located within the boundaries of a Mixed Use Activity Center in all Subdistricts may be permitted up to twenty-five (25) units per gross acre in accordance with the standards of the Mixed-Income Housing Program for housing that is affordable as outlined in the LDC. If such a project 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, and the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay, and the Mixed-Income Housing Program for housing that is affordable outlined in the LDC. 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, except as allowed by the Mixed-Income Housing Program for housing that is affordable outlined in the LDC. For a residential-only project located partially within and partially outside of an Activity Center, the density accumulated from the Activity Center portion of the project may be distributed throughout the project. Mixed-use developments ‒ whether consisting of residential units located above commercial uses, in an attached building, or in a freestanding building ‒ are allowed and encouraged within Mixed Use Activity Centers. Density for such a project is calculated based upon the gross project acreage within the Activity Center. If such a project is located within the boundaries of a Mixed Use Activity Center which is not within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict and is not within the Coastal High Hazard Area, the eligible density is sixteen (16) dwelling units per acre. Development located within the boundaries of a Mixed Use Activity Center in all Subdistricts may be permitted up to twenty-five (25) units per gross acre in accordance with the standards of the Mixed-Income Housing Program for housing that is affordable as outlined in the LDC. If such a project is located within the boundaries of a Mixed Use Activity Center that is not within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict but is within the Coastal High Hazard Area, the eligible density shall be limited to four (4) dwelling units per acre, except as allowed by the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay and the Mixed-Income Housing Program for housing that is affordable outlined in the LDC. 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, except as allowed by the Mixed-Income Housing Program for housing that is affordable outlined in the LDC. 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 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 691 Attachment: Resolution & Exhibit A_ 041122 (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Initiatives GMPA) 7 of 17 Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted. 04/02/22 dw/mrm promote compact and walkable mixed use projects, where the density from a mixed use project is distributed outside the Activity Center boundary: *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** *** 2. Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict: (Page 60) *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** *** 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, up to 16 residential units per gross acre may be allowed. Development located within the boundaries of an Interchange Activity Center in all subdistricts may be permitted up to 25 units per gross acre per standards of the Mixed-Income Housing Program for housing that is affordable as outlined in the LDC. If such a project 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, except as allowed by the Mixed-Income Housing Program for housing that is affordable as outlined in the LDC. For a residential-only project located partially within and partially outside of an Activity Center, the density accumulated from the Activity Center portion of the project may be distributed throughout the project. 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 projects are intended to be developed at a human- scale, pedestrian-oriented, and interconnected with adjacent projects – whether commercial or residential. Street, pedestrian pathway and bike lane interconnections with adjacent properties, where possible and practicable, are encouraged. Density for such a project is calculated based upon the gross project acreage within the Activity Center. If such a project is located within the boundaries of an Interchange Activity Center which is not within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, the eligible density is sixteen dwelling units per acre. Development located within the boundaries of an Interchange Activity Center in all subdistricts may be permitted up to twenty-five (25) units per gross acre per standards of the Mixed-Income Housing Program for housing that is affordable as outlined in the LDC. 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, except as allowed by the Mixed-Income Housing Program for housing that is affordable as outlined in the LDC. 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, the density accumulated from the Activity Center portion of the project shall not be distributed outside of the Activity Center. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** *** 8. Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict: (p. 70) 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 development at a human-scale, pedestrian-oriented, and interconnected with abutting projects – whether commercial or residential. This Subdistrict is allowed in the Urban Commercial District subject to the standards 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 692 Attachment: Resolution & Exhibit A_ 041122 (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Initiatives GMPA) 8 of 17 Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted. 04/02/22 dw/mrm and criteria set forth under the Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict in the Urban Mixed Use District. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** *** FUTURE LAND USE MAP Add this text-based Subdistrict (Conversion of Commercial by Right Subdistrict) in the legend under the Urban Mixed Use District. Add this text-based Subdistrict (Strategic Opportunity Site Subdistrict) in the legend under the Urban Mixed Use District. Add this text-based Subdistrict (Transit Oriented Development Subdistrict) in the legend under the Urban Mixed Use District. Delete this text-based Subdistrict (Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict) in the legend under the Urban Commercial District. 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 693 Attachment: Resolution & Exhibit A_ 041122 (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Initiatives GMPA) 9 of 17 Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted. 04/02/22 dw/mrm 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 694 Attachment: Resolution & Exhibit A_ 041122 (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Initiatives GMPA) 10 of 17 Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted. 04/02/22 dw/mrm EXHIBIT A GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN GOLDEN GATE CITY SUB-ELEMENT A. GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES GOAL 1: TO GUIDE LAND USE AND PUBLIC FACILITY DECISION MAKING AND TO BALANCE THE NEED TO PROVIDE BASIC SERVICES WITH NATURAL RESOURCE CONCERNS THROUGH A WELL PLANNED MIX OF COMPATIBLE LAND USES WHICH ENSURE THE HEALTH, SAFETY, WELFARE, AND QUALITY OF LIFE OF THE LOCAL RESIDENTS. OBJECTIVE 1.1: Develop new or revised uses of land consistent with designations outlined on the Golden Gate City Future Land Use Map and provisions found in the Land Use Designation Description Section of this Element. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** *** Policy 1.1.4: The URBAN Future Land Use Designation shall include Future Land Use Districts and Subdistricts for: A. URBAN ‒ MIXED USE DISTRICT 1. Urban Residential Subdistrict 2. High Density Residential Subdistrict 3. Downtown Center Commercial Subdistrict 4. Commercial Mixed Use by Right Subdistrict 5. Conversion of Commercial by Right Subdistrict 6. Transit Oriented Development Subdistrict *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** *** Policy 1.1.5: No development orders shall be issued inconsistent with the Golden Gate City Sub-Element with the exception of those unimproved properties granted a positive determination through the Zoning Re-evaluation Program and identified on the Future Land Use Map Series as properties Consistent by Policy and those development orders issued pursuant to conditional uses and rezones approved based on the County-Wide Future Land Use Element (adopted January 10, 1989, Ordinance 89-05) which was in effect at the time of approval. Any subsequent development orders shall also be reviewed for consistency with the Growth Management Plan based on the County-Wide Future Land Use Element. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** *** A. LAND USE DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION SECTION 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 695 Attachment: Resolution & Exhibit A_ 041122 (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Initiatives GMPA) 11 of 17 Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted. 04/02/22 dw/mrm *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** *** 1. URBAN DESIGNATION *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** *** A. Urban – Mixed Use District *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** *** a. Urban Residential Subdistrict All land within the urban mixed-use designation is zoned and platted. However, any parcel to be rezoned residential is subject to and must be consistent with the Density Rating System. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** *** 4. Commercial Mixed Use by Right Subdistrict The purpose of this Subdistrict is to encourage the development and redevelopment of certain commercially zoned properties with a mix of affordable residential units 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 pedestrian- scale, pedestrian oriented, and interconnected with abutting projects – whether commercial or residential. Projects utilizing this Subdistrict shall comply with the following standards and criteria: a. This Subdistrict is applicable to the C-1 through C-5 zoning districts on properties found to be “consistent by policy” as identified in FLUE Policies 5.12 and 5.13 and depicted on Map FLUE-10 in the Future Land Use Map series. b. Commercial uses shall be in accordance with the commercial zoning district on the subject property. Development standards shall be no less restrictive than those for the commercial zoning district on the subject property and development in the C-4 District shall not exceed a zoned height of fifty (50) feet. c. Residential density is calculated based upon the gross project acreage and shall not exceed sixteen (16) dwelling units per acre. All residential units must be housing that is affordable. d. 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-five percent (75%) of the gross building square footage and acreage of the project. In the case of a mixed-use building, building square footage devoted to residential uses shall not exceed seventy-five percent (75%) of the gross building square footage. e. Street, pedestrian pathway and bike lane interconnections with abutting properties, where possible and practicable, are encouraged. f. All development shall comply with applicable portions of Section 4.02.38, of the Land Development Code, Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** *** 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 696 Attachment: Resolution & Exhibit A_ 041122 (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Initiatives GMPA) 12 of 17 Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted. 04/02/22 dw/mrm 5. Conversion of Commercial by Right Subdistrict To encourage the provision of housing that is affordable on certain properties zoned Commercial within portions of the Urban designated area, density shall be allowed up to sixteen (16) residential units per gross acre, subject to the following: a. The properties are within the Urban Mixed Use District but are not within the boundaries of the Downtown Center Commercial Subdistrict. b. The properties are zoned Commercial. c. The properties have been found consistent by policy, as referenced in Policy 1.1.5 and as provided for in Future Land Use Element Policies 5.12 and 5.13. d. Development standards shall be no less restrictive than those for the commercial zoning district on the subject property and development in the C-4 District shall not exceed an zoned height of fifty (50) feet. e. All residential units must be housing that is affordable. f. There is a commitment by Agreement approved by the County Manager and County Attorney, or respective designees, that all units shall be maintained affordable in accordance with Section 2.07.02., and pursuant to Section 4.02.40, of the Land Development Code, Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended. g. A public facility impacts comparative analysis for vehicle trips, water consumption and wastewater generation between the proposed project and the highest intensity permitted use within the commercial zoning district on the subject property, has been submitted, and approved by staff, that demonstrates the proposed project would have the same or lesser impacts for all three public facilities. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** *** 6 Transit Oriented Development Subdistrict The purpose of this subdistrict is to promote high-density residential development along existing or proposed transit routes of the Collier Area Transit (CAT) system, known as Transit Oriented Development (TOD), within the Urban Mixed Use District. TODs are further described in the Land Development Code. As stated in Transportation Element Policy 12.10, TODs may increase transit ridership thus reduce single occupancy trips and vehicle miles travelled. A TOD project is eligible for, but not entitled to, thirteen (13) dwelling units per gross acre, subject to paragraphs a. through f. below. The Density Rating System is not applicable to TODs. A TOD that includes housing that is affordable is eligible for, but not entitled to, up to an additional twelve (12) dwelling units per acre subject to paragraphs a. through h. below. a. The TOD must be located along an existing or proposed CAT fixed route. b. At least one half (1/2) of the proposed dwelling units must be located within one q uarter (¼) mile of an existing CAT stop, shelter or station or the TOD shall commit to providing said facility within ¼ mile of those units prior to, or concurrent with, the first residential Certificate of Occupancy. c. The TOD must comply with the transit oriented development design standards contained in Chapter 4 of the LDC. d. The project site is not within the Downtown Center Commercial Subdistrict. e. Only residential multi-family dwelling units are allowed. 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 697 Attachment: Resolution & Exhibit A_ 041122 (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Initiatives GMPA) 13 of 17 Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted. 04/02/22 dw/mrm f. The TOD must be compact and pedestrian oriented. g. There is a commitment by Ordinance or Agreement approved by the Board of County Commissioners that all units shall be maintained affordable in accordance with LDC Section 2.07.02. and pursuant to LDC Section 4.02.42. h. The maximum density shall not exceed twenty-five (25) dwelling units per gross acre. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** *** FUTURE LAND USE MAP Add this text-based Subdistrict (Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict) in the legend under the Urban Mixed Use District. Add this text-based Subdistrict (Conversion of Commercial by Right Subdistrict) in the legend under the Urban Mixed Use District. Add this text-based Subdistrict (Transit Oriented Development Subdistrict) in the legend under the Urban - Mixed Use District. [REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK] 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 698 Attachment: Resolution & Exhibit A_ 041122 (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Initiatives GMPA) 14 of 17 Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted. 04/02/22 dw/mrm 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 699 Attachment: Resolution & Exhibit A_ 041122 (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Initiatives GMPA) 15 of 17 Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted. 04/02/22 dw/mrm EXHIBIT A IMMOKALEE AREA MASTER PLAN GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** *** GOAL 1: *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** *** OBJECTIVE 5: *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** *** Policy 5.1.1: Future Land Use Designation *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** *** A. URBAN – MIXED USE DISTRICT *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** *** 6. Transit Oriented Development Subdistrict *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** *** LAND USE DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION SECTION *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** *** B. URBAN – MIXED USE DISTRICT *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** *** 6. Transit Oriented Development Subdistrict The purpose of this subdistrict is to promote high-density residential development along existing or proposed transit routes of the Collier Area Transit (CAT) system, known as Transit Oriented Development (TOD), within a portion of the Urban Mixed Use District. TODs are further described in the Land Development Code. As stated in Transportation Element Policy 12.10, TODs may increase transit ridership thereby reducing single occupancy trips and vehicle miles travelled. A TOD project is eligible for, but not entitled to, thirteen (13) dwelling units per gross acre, subject to paragraphs a. through f. below. The Density Rating System is not applicable to TODs. A TOD that includes housing that is affordable is eligible for, but not entitled to, up to an additional twelve (12) dwelling units per acre subject to paragraphs a. through h. below. a. The TOD must be located along an existing or proposed CAT fixed route. b. At least one half (1/2) of the proposed dwelling units must be located within one quarter (¼) mile of an existing CAT stop, shelter or station or the TOD shall commit to providing said facility within ¼ mile of those units prior to, or concurrent with, the first residential Certificate of Occupancy. c. The TOD must comply with the transit oriented development design standards contained in Chapter 4 of the LDC. d. The project site is not within the Commercial – Mixed Use Subdistrict (C-MU) or Recreational/Tourist Subdistrict (RT). 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 700 Attachment: Resolution & Exhibit A_ 041122 (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Initiatives GMPA) 16 of 17 Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted. 04/02/22 dw/mrm e. Only residential multi-family dwelling units are allowed. f. The TOD must be compact and pedestrian oriented. g. There is a commitment by Ordinance or Agreement approved by the Board of County Commissioners that all units shall be maintained affordable in accordance with LDC Section 2.07.02. and pursuant to LDC Section 4.02.42. h. The maximum density shall not exceed twenty-five (25) dwelling units per gross acre. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** *** FUTURE LAND USE MAP Add this text-based Subdistrict (Transit Oriented Development Subdistrict) in the legend under the Urban - Mixed Use District. [REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK] 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 701 Attachment: Resolution & Exhibit A_ 041122 (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Initiatives GMPA) 17 of 17 Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted. 04/02/22 dw/mrm 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 702 Attachment: Resolution & Exhibit A_ 041122 (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Initiatives GMPA) 18 of 17 Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted. 04/02/22 dw/mrm EXHIBIT A TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT OBJECTIVE 12: Encourage the efficient use of transit services now and in the future. *** *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** *** Policy 12.10: The County, through the Future Land Use Element, Golden Gate Area Master Plan’s Golden Gate City Sub-Element and the Immokalee Area Master Plan, provides for higher density residential projects along the Collier Area Transit (CAT) routes, known as Transit Oriented Development (TOD), within a portion of the Urban Mixed Use District. TODs, which may include housing that is affordable, proximate to employment centers and/or along transit routes that serve employment centers, may increase transit ridership thereby reducing single occupancy trips and vehicle miles travelled. [REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK] Exhibit A – GMP Hsg Initiatives_03.31.22dw G:\CDES Planning Services\Comprehensive\David - NOVA\AH GMPAs dw/4-4-22 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 703 Attachment: Resolution & Exhibit A_ 041122 (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Initiatives GMPA) COLLIER BLVDTURNER RIVER ROADSR 29INTE RSTAT E 7 5 IMMOKALEE RD OIL WELL RD COLLIER BLVDTAMIAMI TRL E CR 846 SR 82 LIVINGSTON RDSR 29 NSAN MARCO RDTAMIAMI TRL NDAVIS BLVDGOODLETTE RD NPINE RIDGE RD EVERGLADES BLVD NRADIO RD GOLDEN GATE PKY DESOTO BLVD SLOGAN BLVD NSANTA BARBARA BLVDDESOTO BLVD NVANDERBILT BEACH RD GOLDEN GATE BLVD EVANDERBILT DREVERGLADES BLVD SAIRPORT PULLING RD CORKSCREW RDGOLDEN GATE BLVD W COPELAND AVE S9TH ST NS 1ST STN 15TH STB A L D E A G L E D R N BARFIELD DR GREEN BLVDOLD US 41LAKE TRAFFORD RD RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK RD WILSON BLVD NN COLLIER BLVDS BARFIELD DRCOUNTY BARN RDS COLLI ER BLVDBONITA BEACH RD 111TH AVE N COLLIER AVENEW MARKET RD W WILSON BLVD SW MAIN ST WIGGINS PA SS RD 9TH ST SSEAGATE DR I-75 S I-75 NSR 29Tamiami TRL E Oil Well RD Immokalee RD Collier BLVDEverglades BLVDSR 82 CR 84 6 E Livingston RDDesoto BLVDS a n M a r c o R DAirport RD NTamiami TRL NSR 29 NWilson BLVDDavis BLVD Pine Ridge RD Radi o RD Logan BLVD NVanderbilt Beach RDVanderbilt DRGoodlette-Frank RD NRandall BLVD G o l d e n G a t e P K W Y Camp Keais RDCorkscrew RDSanta Barbara BLVDGolden Gate BLV D E 9th ST NOld 41Bald Eagle DRN C ollier B LV D Westclox ST Thomasson DR E Main ST Bayshore DRSmallwood DRI-75 NI-75 SBayshore DRI- 7 5 SI-75 SI-75 SI-75 N °HENDRY COUNTYMONROE COUNTY LEE COUNTY HENDRY COUNTY 2012-2025FUTURE LAND USE MAPCollier County Florida DETAILS OF THE RLSA OVERLAY AREA ARE SHOWNON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP TITLED:"COLLIER COUNTY RURAL & AGRICULTURAL AREA ASSESSMENT STEWARDSHIP OVERLAY MAP" BAREFOOT BEACH PRESERVECOUNTY PARK DELNOR- WIGGINS STATE PARK CLAM PASSCOUNTY PARK CLAMBAYNRPA ROOKERY BAYNATIONAL ESTUARINERESEARCH RESERVE CITYOFNAPLES TIGERTAIL BEACHCOUNTY PARK CITY OF MARCO ISLAND COLLIER-SEMINOLE STATE PARK CAPE ROMANO PORTOF THEISLANDS CAPE ROMANO - TEN THOUSAND ISLANDSAQUATIC PRESERVE EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK CHOKOLOSKEE PLANTATIONISLAND EVERGLADESCITY COPELAND BIG CYPRESS NATIONAL PRESERVE FAKAHATCHEE STRAND PRESERVE STATE PARK FLORIDA PANTHER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SOUTH GOLDENGATE ESTATESNRPA BELLEMEADENRPA NORTHBELLEMEADENRPA IMMOKALEE CORKSCREWSWAMPSANCTUARY CREWNRPA LAKETRAFFORD R 25 E R 26 E R 27 E R 28 E R 29 E R 30 E R 31 E T 46 ST 47 ST 48 ST 49 ST 50 ST 51 ST 52 ST 53 SR 25 E R 26 E R 27 E R 28 E R 29 E R 30 E R 31 E R 32 E R 33 E R 34 ET 46 ST 47 ST 48 ST 49 ST 50 ST 51 ST 52 ST 53 S!"#$75 !"#$75 !"#$75 !"#$75 !"#$75 !"#$75 !"#$75 Æþ41 Æþ41 Æþ41 Æþ41 Æþ41 Æþ41 Æþ41 Æþ41 GOODLANDGulfofMex i c o 0 1 2 3 4 50.5 Miles J ?EXEMPTAREA PREPARED BY: BETH YANG, AICPGIS/CAD MAPPING SECTIONGROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENTFILE: FLU_2022_0122.mxdDATE: 1/21/2022 GOLDEN GATE Veterans Memorial BLVD R 32 E R 33 E R 34 E (1) THIS MAP CAN NOT BE INTERPRETED WITHOUT THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWITH MANAGEMENT PLAN.(2) THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES INCLUDES NUMEROUS MAPS IN ADDITION TO THIS COUNTYWIDE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. THESE MAPS ARE LISTED AND LOCATED AT THE END OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT TEXT.(3) MOST SUBDISTRICTS AS DEPICTED MAY NOT BE TO SCALE. THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES DEPICTS THESE SUBDISTRICTS TO SCALE.(4) THE CONSERVATION DESIGNATION IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AS AREAS ARE ACQUIRED AND MAY INCLUDE OUTPARCELS. (5) REFER TO THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN AND THE IMMOKALEE ARE MASTER PLAN FOR FUTURE LAND USE MAPS OF THOSE COMMUNITIES. NOTE : RURAL FRINGEMIXED USE DISTRICT AGRICULTURAL / RURAL DESIGNATION AGRICULTURAL/RURAL MIXED USE DISTRICT Conservation Designation Estates Designation FUTURE LAND USE MAP A D O P T E D - J A N U A R Y, 1 9 8 9 A M E N D E D - J A N U A R Y, 1 9 9 0 A M E N D E D - F E B R U A R Y, 1 9 9 1 A M E N D E D - M AY, 1 9 9 2 A M E N D E D - M AY, 1 9 9 3 A M E N D E D - A P R I L , 1 9 9 4 A M E N D E D - O C T O B E R , 1 9 9 7 A M E N D E D - J A N U A R Y, 1 9 9 8 A M E N D E D - F E B R U A R Y, 1 9 9 9 A M E N D E D - F E B R U A R Y, 2 0 0 0 A M E N D E D - M AY, 2 0 0 0 A M E N D E D - D E C E M B E R , 2 0 0 0 A M E N D E D - M A R C H , 2 0 0 1 A M E N D E D - M AY 1 4 , 2 0 0 2(O r d . N o . 2 0 0 2 -2 4 )A M E N D E D - J U N E 1 9 , 2 0 0 2(O r d . N o . 2 0 0 2 -3 2 )A M E N D E D - O C T O B E R 2 2 , 2 0 0 2(O r d . N o . 2 0 0 2 -5 4 ) A M E N D E D - F E B R U A R Y 11 , 2 0 0 3(O r d . N o . 2 0 0 3 -7 )A M E N D E D - S E P T E M B E R 9 , 2 0 0 3(O r d . N o . 2 0 0 3 -4 3 )A M E N D E D - S E P T E M B E R 1 0 , 2 0 0 3(O r d . N o . 2 0 0 3 -4 4 ) A M E N D E D - D E C E M B E R 1 6 , 2 0 0 3(O r d . N o . 2 0 0 3 -6 7 )A M E N D E D - O C T O B E R 2 6 , 2 0 0 4(O r d . N o . 2 0 0 4 -7 1 ) A M E N D E D - J U N E 7 , 2 0 0 5(O r d . N o . 2 0 0 5 -2 5 )A M E N D E D - J A N U A R Y 2 5 , 2 0 0 7(O r d . N o . 2 0 0 7 -1 8 )A M E N D E D - D E C E M B E R 4 , 2 0 0 7(O r d . N o . 2 0 0 7 -7 8 ,7 9 ,8 1 )A M E N D E D - O C T O B E R 1 4 , 2 0 0 8(O r d . N o . 2 0 0 8 -5 7 ,5 8 ,5 9 )A M E N D E D - S E P T E M B E R 1 3 , 2 0 11(O r d . N o . 2 0 11 -2 6 )A M E N D E D - S E P T E M B E R 1 3 , 2 0 11(O r d . N o . 2 0 11 -2 7 )A M E N D E D - J A N U A R Y 8 , 2 0 1 3(O r d . N o . 2 0 1 3 -1 4 )A M E N D E D - M AY 2 8 , 2 0 1 3(O r d . N o . 2 0 1 3 -4 1 )A M E N D E D - J U N E 1 0 , 2 0 1 4(O r d . N o . 2 0 1 4 -2 0 ) A M E N D E D - F E B R U A R Y 1 0 , 2 0 1 5(O r d . N o . 2 0 1 5 -1 3 )A M E N D E D - A P R I L 1 4 , 2 0 1 5(O r d . N o . 2 0 1 5 -2 6 ) A M E N D E D - J U N E 9 , 2 0 1 5(O r d . N o . 2 0 1 5 -3 2 )A M E N D E D - J U LY 7 , 2 0 1 5(O r d . N o . 2 0 1 5 -4 2 ) A M E N D E D - M AY 2 4 , 2 0 1 6(O r d . N o . 2 0 1 6 -1 5 )A M E N D E D - J U N E 1 3 , 2 0 1 7(O r d . N o . 2 0 1 7 -2 2 )A M E N D E D - D E C E M B E R 1 2 , 2 0 1 7(O r d . N o . 2 0 1 7 -4 6 )A M E N D E D - M AY 8 , 2 0 1 8(O r d . N o . 2 0 1 8 -2 3 )A M E N D E D - J U N E 1 2 , 2 0 1 8(O r d . N o . 2 0 1 8 -3 0 )A M E N D E D - S E P T E M B E R 11 , 2 0 1 8(O r d . N o . 2 0 1 8 -4 2 )A M E N D E D - S E P T E M B E R 2 5 , 2 0 1 8(O r d . N o . 2 0 1 8 -4 8 )A M E N D E D - S E P T E M B E R 2 4 , 2 0 1 9(O r d . N o . 2 0 1 9 -2 1 )A M E N D E D - O C T O B E R 8 , 2 0 1 9(O r d . N o . 2 0 1 9 -3 3 ) Neutral Lands Sending Lands Receiving Lands Rural Industrial District Rural Settlement Area District RURAL COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT Corkscrew Island Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict A M E N D E D - J U N E 9 , 2 0 2 0(O r d . N o . 2 0 2 0 -1 5 )A M E N D E D - J U LY 1 4 , 2 0 2 0(O r d . N o . 2 0 2 0 -2 1 ) Meridian Village Mixed Use Subdistrict Vanderbilt Beach Road Mixed Use Subdistrict A M E N D E D - S E P T E M B E R 2 2 , 2 0 2 0(O r d . N o . 2 0 2 0 -2 5 ) OVERLAYS ANDSPECIAL FEATURES Area of Critical State Concern Overlay Airport Noise Area Overlay Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) Overlay Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Urban-Rural Fringe Transition Area Overlay North Belle Meade Overlay Incorporated Areas Coastal High Hazard Area NC Square Mixed-Use Overlay A M E N D E D - O C T O B E R 1 3 , 2 0 2 0(O r d . N o . 2 0 2 0 -3 1 )A M E N D E D - O C T O B E R 2 7 , 2 0 2 0(O r d . N o . 2 0 2 0 -3 4 ) A M E N D E D - N O V E M B E R 1 0 , 2 0 2 0(O r d . N o . 2 0 2 0 -4 2 )A M E N D E D - M A R C H 1 , 2 0 2 1(O r d . N o . 2 0 2 1 -0 8 ) A M E N D E D - O C T O B E R 2 7 , 2 0 2 0(O r d . N o . 2 0 2 0 -3 6 ) A M E N D E D - A P R I L 2 7 , 2 0 2 1(O r d . N o . 2 0 2 1 -1 7 )A M E N D E D - S E P T E M B E R 2 8 , 2 0 2 1(O r d . N o . 2 0 2 1 -3 2 ) RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY PARK SUBDISTRICT COMMERCIAL MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT Hibiscus Residential Infill Subdistrict Livingston Road / Radio Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict Collier Blvd Community Facility Subdistrict Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict Vincentian Mixed Use Subdistrict Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict East Tamiami Trail Commercial Infill Subdistrict COMMERCIAL DISTRICT BUSINESS PARK SUBDISTRICTRESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY PARK SUBDISTRICT Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict Livingston / Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict Industrial District BUSINESS PARK SUBDISTRICTRESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY PARK SUBDISTRICT Livingston Road / Eatonwood Lane Commercial Infill Subdistrict Livingston Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict Seed To TableCommercial Subdistrict Vanderbilt Beach CommercialTourist Subdistrict COMMERCIAL MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT Livingston Road / Veterans Memorial Blvd. Commercial Infill Subdistrict Orange Blossom / Airport CrossroadsCommercial Subdistrict Davis-Radio Commercial Subdistrict Logan Blvd./Immokalee Rd. Commercial Infill Subdistrict Germain Immokalee Commercial Subdistrict Greeway - Tamiami Trail East Commercial Subdistrict Bay House Campus Commercial Subdistrict URBAN DESIGNATION MIXED USE DISTRICT BUSINESS PARK SUBDISTRICTOFFICE AND INFILL COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICTPUD NEIGHBORHOOD VILLAGE CENTER SUBDISTRICTRESIDENTIAL MIXED USE NEIGHBORHOOD SUBDISTRICT Urban Residential Subdistrict Residential Density Bands Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict Orange Blossom Mixed Use Subdistrict Vanderbilt Beach / Coller Blvd. Commercial Subdistrict Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict Goodlette / Pine Ridge Mixed Use Subdistrict Livingston Road / Veterans MemorialBoulevard East Residential Subdistrict Ventana Pointe Residential Overlay Immokalee Road Interchange Residential Infill Subdistrict Creekside Commerce Park East Mixed Use Subdistrict A M E N D E D - O C T O B E R 2 6 , 2 0 2 1(O r d . N o . 2 0 2 1 -3 6 ) 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 704 Attachment: Countywide Future Land Use Map (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Initiatives GMPA) 2350 Stanford Court ■ Naples, Florida 34112 (239) 434-0333 ■ Fax (239) 434-9320 SINCE 1 946 The Johnson Engineering Team is pleased to provide to the Housing Operations and Grants Development Staff the proposed Growth Management Plan (GMP) & Land Development Code (LDC) changes and support material associated with the final Initiatives recommended by the Collier Housing Plans and directed by the by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) at their public hearing on October 8th, 2018. This memorandum is designed to provide a brief description of the final Housing Initiatives, consisting of GMP and LDC changes to implement the Initiatives. It should be noted that the LDC amendments associated with Initiative One, which was delivered on June 25, 2020, are scheduled to be heard by the BCC at their January 26, 2021 public hearing and adopted at their February 9, 2021 public hearing. The draft GMP and LDC amendments have been developed in coordination with Housing Staff and high level review and input from Growth Management Department staff Initiative Two – Five: These Initiatives cover a range of regulatory issues related to the provision of housing that is affordable that were advanced within the Community Housing Plan, these include: I2 - Streamlining conversion of commercial zoning to residential zoning when providing for housing that is affordable; I3 - Increasing density within Activity Centers from 16 units per acre to 25 units per acre when providing for housing that is affordable; I4 - Creation of Strategic Opportunity Sites as a identified subdistrict within the GMP to allow for the development of a mixed use development that provides for residential density up to 25 units per acre which is integrated with non-residential land uses with a high degree of employment opportunities, such as corporate headquarters or business campuses; and finally I5 - Increasing density opportunities along bus/transit lines through the creation of Transit Oriented Development (TOD) up to a maximum of 25 units per acre. Each of these Initiatives require amendments to the GMP, which requires a process of review through Transmittal Hearings before the CCPC and the BCC, then review by the State Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO), followed by another round of review through Adoption Hearings by the CCPC and the BCC. The process for adoption of GMP amendments typically require 10 to 12 months to satisfy. Following the proposed four Initiatives, the deliverable package provides for an Appendix which contains the data and analysis to support the GMP and LDC amendments. This material is ordered as follows: 1. Marketing Brochure Five Initiatives, 2. 10-09-18 BCC Recap 3. 10-09-18 Housing Executive Summary and Support PowerPoint 4. Collier Housing Plan 5. ULI Collier Housing Assessment TO: Hilary Halford DATE: December 11, 2020 FROM: Mike Bosi, AICP RE: Final Delivery of Initiative Two, Three, Four and Five – Contract No. 13-6164 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 705 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Initiative Two 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 706 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing OUTLINE INITIATIVE TWO S TREAMLINE COMMERCIAL TO MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL CONVERSIONS 12/8/2020 Initiative Two 1 Statement of Issue – This initiative seeks to streamline the approval process for developments seeking to convert from existing Commercial zoning to Mixed Use and Residential, in exchange for those developments providing their residential units as housing that is affordable. The conversion process is limited to approved commercial zoning found consistent by policies 5.9 through 5.13 of the Future Land Use Element. The initiative seeks to reduce the uncertainty and the amount of time associated with the public hearing approval process for projects that seek to reduce overall intensity from commercial to mixed use or residential use. To be eligible for the administrative approval, the proposed project must contain a commitment for providing housing that is affordable. Strategy to implement – The Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan through policy 5.3.e allows for an evaluation of an existing project against a proposed project through a comparison of the overall intensity of development based upon public facilities impact, with transportation impact being the primary evaluation criteria, with a secondary analysis of utility impacts. Based upon this established process to evaluate or compare projects, the GMP and the LDC would be amended to add housing that is affordable as a permitted use in all commercial zoning districts when a traffic impact analysis, as provided for in the FLUE, yields a result of equal or reduced traffic impacts for a proposed residential or mixed use project. To qualify as a permitted use the project must contain a housing that is affordable commitment. Issues to Consider – The County Attorney’s office has stated that the Board cannot allocate it zoning powers to another body or an administrative process. Based upon this opinion the original concept behind this initiative, for a conversion project to submit for staff administrative review, with the Hearing Examiner certifying the application has meet the required regulatory code was abandoned. The concept of streamlining the conversion process is still desired, but the proposed strategy to attain will have to satisfy the County Attorney’s Office concerns. To address this concern, the initiative seeks to add to the Commercial zoning districts, housing that is affordable as a permitted use. This addition of housing that is affordable as a permitted use to the commercial zoning districts would eliminate the need to rezone commercial property. Area of change –Future Land Use Element (FLUE) & Land Development Code (LDC) II. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES GOAL: TO GUIDE LAND USE DECISION-MAKING SO AS TO ACHIEVE AND MAINTAIN A HIGH QUALITY NATURAL AND HUMAN ENVIRONMENT WITH A WELL PLANNED MIX OF COMPATIBLE LAND USES WHICH PROMOTE THE PUBLIC'S HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE CONSISTENT WITH STATE PLANNING REQUIREMENTS AND LOCAL DESIRES. ****************************************************************************** 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 707 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing OUTLINE INITIATIVE TWO S TREAMLINE COMMERCIAL TO MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL CONVERSIONS 12/8/2020 Initiative Two 2 OBJECTIVE 1: Promote well planned land uses consistent with Future Land Use Designations, Districts and Subdistricts and the Future Land Use Map to ensure compatibility between the natural and human environments. ****************************************************************************** OBJECTIVE 5: Implement land use policies that promote sound planning, protect environmentally sensitive lands and habitat for listed species while protecting private property rights, ensure compatibility of land uses and further the implementation of the Future Land Use Element. Policy 5.1: Land use policies supporting Objective 5 shall be implemented upon the adoption of the Growth Management Plan. ****************************************************************************** Policy 5.17: Housing that is Affordable by Right in Commercial Zoning Districts To encourage the provision of housing that is affordable within the Urban Mixed Use District, sites zoned Commercial, which have been found consistent by policy and contain a commitment to provide for housing that is affordable shall be a permitted use up to a density of 16 gross units per acre, subject to satisfying a traffic impact analysis. The proposed affordable housing project’s traffic impact shall be evaluated against the highest intensity use within the applicable commercial zoning district and contain a reduced impact to qualify as a permitted use. LDC 2.03.03 – Commercial Zoning Districts A. Commercial Convenience District (C -1). 1. The following uses, as identified with a number from the Standard Industrial Classification Manual (1987), or as otherwise provided for within this section are permissible by right, or as accessory or conditional uses within the commercial intermediate district (C-3). a. Permitted uses. 1. Accounting (8721). 2. Adjustment and collection services (7322). 3. Advertising agencies (7311). 4. Housing that is Affordable , subject to the Housing that is Affordable by Right in Commercial Zoning Districts provision of Policy 5.17 of the FLUE and 4.02.xx of the LDC. ****************************************************************** 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 708 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing OUTLINE INITIATIVE TWO S TREAMLINE COMMERCIAL TO MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL CONVERSIONS 12/8/2020 Initiative Two 3 27. Mixed residential and commercial uses containing housing that is affordable subject to the Housing that is Afforda ble by Right in Commercial Zoning Districts provision of Policy 5.17 of the FLUE, LDC section 4.02.xx and design criteria contained in section 4.02.38. B. Commercial Convenience District (C -2). 1. The following uses, as identified with a number from the Standard Industrial Classification Manual (1987), or as otherwise provided for within this section are permissible by right, or as accessory or conditional uses within the commercial intermediate district (C-3). a. Permitted uses. 1. Accounting (8721). 2. Adjustment and collection services (7322). 3. Advertising agencies (7311). 4. Housing that is Affordable, subject to the Housing that is Affordable by Right in Commercial Zoning District s provision of Policy 5.17 of the FLUE and 4.02.xx of the LDC. ******************************************************************** 46. Mixed residential and commercial uses containing housing that is affordable subject to the Housing that is Affordable by Right in Commercial Zoning Districts provision of Policy 5.17 of the FLUE, LDC section 4.02.xx and design criteria contained in section 4.02.38. ********************************************************************* C. Commercial Convenience District (C -3). 1. The following uses, as identified with a number from the Standard Industrial Classification Manual (1987), or as otherwise provided for within this section are permissible by right, or as accessory or conditional uses within the commercial intermediat e district (C-3). a. Permitted uses. 1. Accounting (8721). 2. Adjustment and collection services (7322). 3. Advertising agencies (7311). 4. Housing that is Affordable, subject to the Housing that is Affordable by Right in Commercial Zoning Districts provision of Policy 5.17 of the FLUE and 4.02.xx of the LDC. ***************************************************************** 59. Mixed residential and commercial uses containing housing that is affordable subject to the Housing that is Afforda ble by Right in Commercial Zoning Districts provision of Policy 5.17 of the FLUE, LDC section 4.02.xx and design criteria contained in section 4.02.38 . ****************************************************************** 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 709 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing OUTLINE INITIATIVE TWO S TREAMLINE COMMERCIAL TO MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL CONVERSIONS 12/8/2020 Initiative Two 4 D. Commercial Convenience District (C -4). 1. The following uses, as identified with a number from the Standard Industrial Classification Manual (1987), or as otherwise provided for within this section are permissible by right, or as accessory or conditional uses within the commercial intermediate district (C -4). a. Permitted uses. 1. Accounting (8721). 2. Adjustment and collection services (7322). 3. Advertising agencies (7311). 4. Advertising – miscellaneous (7319). 5. Housing that is Affordable, subject to the Housing that is Affordable by Right in Commercial Zoning Districts provision of Policy 5.17 of the FLUE and 4.02.xx of the LDC. ****************************************************************************** E. Commercial Convenience District (C -5). 1. The following uses, as identified with a number from the Standard Industrial Classification Manual (1987), or as otherwise provided for within this section are permissible by right, or as accessory or conditional uses within the commercial intermediate district (C -5). a. Permitted uses. 1. Accounting (8721). 2. Adjustment and collection services (7322). 3. Advertising agencies (7311). 4. Advertising – miscellaneous (7319). 5. Housing that is Affordable, subject to the Housing that is Affordable by Right in Commercial Zoning Districts provision of Policy 5.17 of the FLUE and 4.02.xx of the LDC. ************************************************************************************* 2.07.00 – Price Qualifying Program for Housing that is Affordable 2.07.01 – Purpose and Intent A. Section 2.07.00 is intended to implement and be consistent with the GMP, § 163.3161 et seq. F.S, F.A.C., and the Stipulated Settlement Agreement in DOAH Case No. 89-1299 GM, by providing for price points of housing units that is affordable to gap-moderate-, low-, and very- low-income levels through the use of density bonuses which allow an increase in the number of residential dwelling units per acre allowed on property proposed for development, thereby decreasing the per unit cost of land and development. B. This objective is accomplished by implementing a Price Qualifying program which consists of a commitment to provide for Housing that is Affordable. The purpose of the commitment is to provide increased residential densities to developers who guarantee that a portion of their 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 710 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing OUTLINE INITIATIVE TWO S TREAMLINE COMMERCIAL TO MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL CONVERSIONS 12/8/2020 Initiative Two 5 housing development will provide price points of specific units that aligns as affordable to households of gap-, moderate-, low-, or very-low-income, thus expanding housing opportunities for households throughout the county. 2.07.02 – Program Criteria The following are required components of the commitment for a Price Qualifying Housing that is Affordable project. A. Price Qualification for Income Levels Served. The price points for all units dedicated as Housing that is Affordable within the project must be affordable to income levels as identified within the below chart. 1. Identify the total number of housing units within the development and the total number of units that are affordable, categorized by price points for the level of income, type of unit (single-family or multifamily, owner-occupied or rental), and number of bedrooms, required in the development. 2. The price associated with the Housing that is Affordable unit cannot exceed the thresholds established for the above income levels within the annually updated Collier County Housing Demand Methodology regarding for sale units or the annually updated Board approved Table of Rental Rates regarding rental units. B. Price Point Requirement. The commitment to the sales price or the monthl y rent for the Housing that is Affordable units shall be specified to a time period of five years from initial date of sale or rent. 1. The commitment shall require an annual monitoring report be submitted to the Housing Operations and Grant Development Di vision for a period of five years from the final CO for the project to ensure pricing does not exceed the thresholds established . 2. The conditions contained in the commitment shall constitute covenants, restrictions, and conditions which shall run with th e land and shall be binding upon the property and the owner’s successors and assigns . C. Eligibility Requirement. Owners or renters within the Housing that is Affordable Project must be employed within Collier County as an Essential Service Personnel as defined in the Collier Local Housing Assistance Plan or retired Essential Service Personnel as defined in the Collier Local Housing Assistance Plan . D. Violations and Enforcement. Income Level as a percent of Median Income Gap (>120 - <140) Moderate (>80 - <120) Low (>50 - <80) Very Low (<50) 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 711 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing OUTLINE INITIATIVE TWO S TREAMLINE COMMERCIAL TO MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL CONVERSIONS 12/8/2020 Initiative Two 6 1. It is a violation of section 2.07.00 to rent, sell or occupy, or attempt to rent, sell or occupy, an affordable housing unit provided under the Price Qualifying program except as specifically permitted by the terms of section 2.0 7.00, or to knowingly give false or misleading i nformation with respect to any information required or requested by the County Manager or designee or by other persons pursuant to the authority which is delegated to them by section 2.0 7.00. 2. The County Manager or designee shall have full power to enfor ce the terms of this section and any developer agreements, rezoning conditions or stipulations, and planned unit development (PUD) conditions and stipulations pursuant to this section and the rights, privileges and conditions described herein, by action at law or equity. In the event that it is determined that a violation has occurred and has not or will not be corrected within 60 days, the certificate of occupancy for all Housing that is affordable units within the development shall be withdrawn and the sa nctions or penalties provided in the Housing that is Affordable commitment shall be pursued to the fullest extent allowed by law. E. Commitment. The commitment to provide for Housing that is Affordable shall be in the form of developer’s agreement, a PUD developers commitment or rezoning condition of approval, all of which are subject to the requirements of LDC section 2.07.00. 4.02.xx –Housing that is Affordable by Right in Commercial Zoning Districts A. As required by the Housing that is Affordable by Right in Commercial Zoning Districts provisions within Policy 5.17 of the Growth Management Plan to qualify as a permitted use within the respective commercial zoning district, the property must have been found to be consistent by policy and contain a commitment to provide for housing that is affordable for all units within the project up to a density of 16 gross units per acre , subject to satisfying a traffic impact analysis provided for within Policy 5.3.e of the Future Land Use Element. 1. The proposed affordable housing project’s traffic impact shall be evaluated against the highest intensity use within the applicable commercial zoning district to qualify as a permitted use. The results of the impact analysis must show the proposed project to be of equal or reduced traffic impact to qualify as a permitted use in the zoning district. 2. In addition to the public facilities impact analysis, to qualify for the administrative process, the project must submit a School Impact Analysis per LDC Section 10.04.09. 3. The Affordable Housing by Right in Commercial Zoning Districts project must be multi - family, single family attached or townhouse. 4. Prior to approval of the Site Development Plan for the project, the application must satisfy the Traffic Impact Analysis, the School Impact Analysis and enter a commitment to provide for housing that is affordable . a. The commitment will contain the specifics of the price qualification for income levels served, term of commitment, eligibility requirements, and violations and enforcement as provided within LDC section 2.07.02. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 712 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing OUTLINE INITIATIVE TWO S TREAMLINE COMMERCIAL TO MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL CONVERSIONS 12/8/2020 Initiative Two 7 b. For units that are for sale, o ne half of the units must be at a price point that is affordable to either the Low or Very Low income le vels as provided for within LDC section 2.07.02.A.1. The other one half of the units can be provided at a price point that is affordable to any of the income levels provided for with section 2.07.0 2.A.1. c. For units that are for rent, all units must be at a price points affordable to Low and Very Low income levels. 5. A Housing that is Affordable by Right in Commercial Zoning Districts project must satisfy the dimensional standards of the underlying commercial zoning district except that the minimum distance between structures shall be a minimum of 10 feet. a. When the proposed project is adjacent to any property occupied by, or zoned to permit, a single family dwelling unit : 1). Setback from the common boundaries shall be equal to the proposed zoned building height; and 2). A 15-foot Type “B” buffer shall be provided along the common boundaries. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 713 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Initiative Three 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 714 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing INITIATIVE THREE I NCENTIVIZE MIXED I NCOME RESIDENTIAL HOUSING IN FUTURE AND REDEVELOPED ACTIVITY CENTERS DRAFT GMP AND LDC AMENDMENTS Initiative Three 12/8/2020 1 Statement of Issue – Per the Future Land Use Element of the Collier Growth Management Plan (GMP), mixed use activity centers are intended to be mixed use in character, with the allowable land uses to include the full array of commercial, residential and institutional uses, and other land uses as generally allowed in the Urban designations. The original design of the mixed-use activity center concept as part of the adoption of the GMP was to require a percentage of the activity centers to be developed with residential development at the highest density allowed by the plan. The intent was to allow higher density in the areas of the County where the highest intensity of use was expected and to allow for the market to provide for lower cost units in a high density setting to provide for a better spatial relationship to where job opportunities being created and where potential employees could gain housing that is affordable. This strategy is based upon the concept of reducing vehicle miles traveled, which results in an increase in capacity to the transportation system without the costly expenditures for new roads. While sound in concept, the resulting land use mix of the activity centers provided by the marketplace was a mono-culture of commercial and non-residential land uses. This initiative is designed to provide for incentives through higher densities to allow the marketplace to provide for the mixed use concept within activity centers through the development of mixed income residential housing. Strategy to implement – The Future Land Use Element currently limits density within the activity centers to 16 units per acre (except in the Urban Residential Fringe and Coastal High Hazard Area where the density limit is much lower). To further incentives the introduction of mixed income residential use to current activity centers this amendment seeks to increase the density within the activity centers from sixteen (16) units per acre to twenty-four (25) units per acre when providing for a mixed income residential project that contains housing that is affordable. The current limit of 16 units per acre will remain for all market based projects, but if a project is willing to set aside two-thirds of the bonus density units above the 16 units per acre to a price point affordable to an identified household income level, additional density can be achieved. The full nine units above the current sixteen unit maximum can be achieved if the mixed income residential project dedicates six of the nine additional units to price points affordable to more than one household income level. The density limit for activity centers in the Urban Residential Fringe and Coastal High Hazzard Area will remain unchanged. Considerations – The focus of this initiative is not to remove the public hearing component for a housing that is affordable project, but rather to provide for a satisfactory level of incentivization of the density allowed within an activity center for a market response. The benefit sits with the proximity of housing that is affordable to the job opportunities created within Activit y Centers (retail and service based). This not only benefits the transportation system by reducing or eliminating a percentage of trips to satisfy the Activity Center’s employment needs, but also places goods and services in much closer proximity to the housing that is affordable and market rate housing within the Activity Center, therefore reducing a percentage of those household’s daily trips. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 715 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing INITIATIVE THREE I NCENTIVIZE MIXED I NCOME RESIDENTIAL HOUSING IN FUTURE AND REDEVELOPED ACTIVITY CENTERS DRAFT GMP AND LDC AMENDMENTS Initiative Three 12/8/2020 2 Area of change –Mixed Use Activity Centers and Interchange Activity Center Subdistricts of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) & Land Development Code (LDC) GMP and Land Development Code changes FLUE - C. Urban Commercial District (Page 56) 1. Mixed Use Activity Center 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 and up to 25 units per gross acre when providing for a mixed income project, which contains a commitment to provide for housing that is affordable. If such a project 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 and the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay. If such a project is located within the boundaries of a Mixed Use Activity Center which is within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, eligible density shall be as allowed by that Subdistrict. For a residential -only project located partially within and partially outside of an Activity Center, the density accumulated from the Activity Center portion of the project may be distributed throughout the project. Mixed-use developments ‒ whether consisting of residential units located above commercial uses, in an attached building, or in a freestanding building ‒ are allowed and encouraged within Mixed Use Activity Centers. Density for such a project is calculated based upon the gross project acreage within the Activity Center. If such a project is located within the boundaries of a Mixed Use Activity Center which is not within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict and is not within the Coastal High Hazard Area, the eligible density is sixteen (16) dwelling units per acre and up to 25 units per gross acre when providing for a mixed income project, which contains a commitment to provide for housing that is affordable. If such a project is located within the boundaries of a Mixed Use Activity Center that is not within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict but is within the Coastal High Hazard Area, the eligible density shall be limited to four (4) dwelling units per acre, except as allowed by the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay. If such a project is located within the boundaries of a Mixed Use Activity Center which is within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, eligible density shall be as allowed by that Subdistrict. For a project located partially within and partially outside of an Activity Center, and the portion within an Activity Center is developed as mixed use, some of the density accumulated from the Activity Center portion of the project may be distributed to that portion of the project located outside of the Activity Center. In order to promote compact and walkable mixed use projects, where the density from a mixed use project is distributed outside the Activity Center boundary: 2. Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict: (Page 60) 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 716 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing INITIATIVE THREE I NCENTIVIZE MIXED I NCOME RESIDENTIAL HOUSING IN FUTURE AND REDEVELOPED ACTIVITY CENTERS DRAFT GMP AND LDC AMENDMENTS Initiative Three 12/8/2020 3 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, up to 16 residential units per gross acre may be allowed and up to 25 units per gross acre when providing for a mixed income project, which contains a commitment to provide for housing that is affordable If such a project 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 project located partially within and partially outside of an Activity Center, the density accumulated from the Activity Center portion of the project may be distributed throughout the project. 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 projects are intended to be developed at a human- scale, pedestrian-oriented, and interconnected with adjacent projects – whether commercial or residential. Street, pedestrian pathway and bike lane interconnections with adjacent properties, where possible and practicable, are encouraged. Density for such a project is calculated based upon the gross project acreage within the Activity Center. If such a project is located within the boundaries of an Interchange Activity Center which is not within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, the eligible density is sixteen dwelling units per acre and up to 25 units per gross acre when providing for a mixed income project, which contains a commitment to provide for housing that is affordable. 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, the density accumulated from the Activity Center portion of the project shall not be distributed outside of the Activity Center. ************************************************************************************* LDC 2.07.00 – Price Qualifying Program for Housing that is Affordable 2.07.01 – Purpose and Intent A. Section 2.07.00 is intended to implement and be consistent with the GMP, § 163.3161 et seq. F.S, F.A.C., and the Stipulated Settlement Agreement in DOAH Case No. 89-1299 GM, by providing for price points of housing units that is affordable to gap-moderate-, low-, and very- low-income levels through the use of density bonuses which allow an increase in the number of residential dwelling units per acre allowed on property proposed for development, thereby decreasing the per unit cost of land and development. B. This objective is accomplished by implementing a Price Qualifying program which consists of a commitment to provide for Housing that is Affordable. The purpose of the commitment is to provide increased residential densities to developers who guarantee that a portion of their housing development will provide price points of specific units that align as affordable to 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 717 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing INITIATIVE THREE I NCENTIVIZE MIXED I NCOME RESIDENTIAL HOUSING IN FUTURE AND REDEVELOPED ACTIVITY CENTERS DRAFT GMP AND LDC AMENDMENTS Initiative Three 12/8/2020 4 households of gap-, moderate-, low-, or very-low-income, thus expanding housing opportunities for households throughout the county. 2.07.02 – Program Criteria The following are required components of the commitment for a Price Qualifying Housing that is Affordable project. A. Price Qualification for Income Levels Served. The price points for all units dedicated as Housing that is Affordable within the project must be a ffordable to income levels as identified withi n the below chart. 1. Identify the total number of housing units within the development and the total number of units that are affordable, categorized by price points for the level of income, type of unit (single-family or multifamily, owner-occupied or rental), and number of bedrooms, required in the development. 2. The price associated with the Housing that is Affordable unit cannot exceed the thresholds established for the above income levels within the annually updated Collier County Housing Demand Me thodology regarding for sale units or the annually updated Board approved Table of Rental Rates regarding rental units. B. Price Point Requirement. The commitment to the sales price or the monthly rent for the Housing that is Affordable units shall be spe cified to a time period of five years from initial date of sale or rent. 1. The commitment shall require an annual monitoring report be submitted to the Housing Operations and Grant Development Division for a period of five years from the final CO for the project to ensure pricing does not exceed the thresholds established. 2. The conditions contained in the commitment shall constitute covenants, restrictions, and conditions which shall run with the land and shall be binding upon the property and the owner’s successors and assigns . C. Eligibility Requirement. Owners or renters within the Housing that is Affordable Proj ect must be employed within Collier County as an Essential Service Personnel as defined in the Collier Local Housing Assistance Plan or retired Essential Service Personnel as defined in the Collier Local Housing Assistance Plan. D. Violations and Enforcem ent. 1. It is a violation of section 2.0 7.00 to rent, sell or occupy, or attempt to rent, sell or occupy, an affordable housing unit provided under the Price Qualifying program except Income Level as a percent of Median Income Gap (>120 - <140) Moderate (>80 - <120) Low (>50 - <80) Very Low (<50) 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 718 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing INITIATIVE THREE I NCENTIVIZE MIXED I NCOME RESIDENTIAL HOUSING IN FUTURE AND REDEVELOPED ACTIVITY CENTERS DRAFT GMP AND LDC AMENDMENTS Initiative Three 12/8/2020 5 as specifically permitted by the terms of section 2.0 7.00, or to knowi ngly give false or misleading information with respect to any information required or requested by the County Manager or designee or by other persons pursuant to the authority which is delegated to them by section 2.0 7.00. 2. The County Manager or designee shall have full power to enforce the terms of this section and any developer agreements, rezoning conditions or stipulations, and planned unit development (PUD) conditions and stipulations pursuant to this section and the rights, privileges and conditions described herein, by action at law or equity. In the event that it is determined that a violation has occurred and has not or will not be corrected within 60 days, the certificate of occupancy for all Housing that is affordable units within the developmen t shall be withdrawn and the sanctions or penalties provided in the Housing that is Affordable commitment shall be pursued to the fullest extent allowed by law. E. Commitment. The commitment to provide for Housing that is Affordable shall be in the form of developer’s agreement, a PUD developers commitment or rezoning condition of approval, all of which are subject to the requirements of LDC section 2.07.00. ************************************************************************* 4.02.xx –Housing that is Affordable by Right in Commercial Zoning Districts ****************************************************************************** 4.02.xx –Housing that is Affordable within Activity Centers or an Interchange Activity Centers A. Within an Activity Center or an Interchange Activity Center to increase density beyond 16 units per acre, additional units per acre are required to be made available at a price point affordable for specified income levels, as identified in the chart within 2.07.02.A.1. Additionally, the project must: 1. Be a multi-family, single family attached, or townhouse project submitted as a Planned Unit Development or Planned Unit Development Amendment; 2. Enter into a commitment that will contain the specifics of the price qualification for income levels served, term of commitment, eligibility requirements, and violations and enforcement as provided within LDC Section 2.07.00. B. The following are additional required components of the commitment for Housing that is Affordable for a project. 1. For units that are for sale, two-thirds (2/3) of the first six units or four of six of bonus density above 16 units per acre must be made available at a price point affordable to the low level or very low income level identified within the chart in 2.07.03.A.1. Two-Thirds of the final three units or two of three of bonus density shall be made available at a price point from any of the income levels identified within the chart in 2.07.02.A.1. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 719 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing INITIATIVE THREE I NCENTIVIZE MIXED I NCOME RESIDENTIAL HOUSING IN FUTURE AND REDEVELOPED ACTIVITY CENTERS DRAFT GMP AND LDC AMENDMENTS Initiative Three 12/8/2020 6 2. If the proposed project is to be a rental community, two-thirds (2/3) of the bonus density must be made available at a price point affordable to the low level or very low income level identified within the chart in 2.07.03.A.1. C. When the proposed project is adjacent to any property occupied by,or zoned to permit, a single family dwelling unit: 1). Setback from the common boundaries shall be equal to the proposed zoned building height; and 2). A 15-foot Type “B” buffer shall be provided along the common boundaries. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 720 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Initiative Four 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 721 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing OUTLINE - INITIATIVE FOUR CREATE A STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY SITES (SOS) DESIGNATION PROCESS AND ALLOW FOR INCREASED DENSITY Initiative Four 12/8/2020 1 Statement of Issue – A main recommendation of the 2017 ULI Study is that Collier County should allow for greater residential densities to mitigate high land and development costs. Strategic Opportunity Site’s (SOS) would be designated by the BCC as areas where higher densities are encouraged when providing for housing that is affordable. Strategic Opportunity Sites are designed to strengthen the relationship between job creation and the location of housing that is affordable for that workforce, with SOS’s designed to include new corporate headquarter sites or industrial areas, employment centers, educational facilities or major transportation corridors and other appropriate locations outside of the activity center locations. Housing that is affordable in Strategic Opportunity Sites could be designated for Essential Services Personnel (teachers, first responders, health care professionals, etc.), but will be required to provide for commitments for housing that is affordable. The initiative seeks to develop a process for emerging areas for designation (floating designation to be applied for) where certain land uses (corporate headquarters, campus, research and development parks, etc.) are proposed. The intended benefits are anticipated to be an increase in certainty, a reduction in cost, a better job to housing spatial arrangement and an overall reduction on infrastructure expansion. Strategy to implement – To provide for the initiative, the GMP will be amended to create the criteria for the designation of SOS, similar to the industrial designation process, and develop criteria that must be satisfied: mix of housing types, minimum percentage of units at certain affordability levels, multi-modal design and the ratio of land use mix. The amendment will allow the SOS designation process for future designation based upon proposed land use changes such as corporate headquarters, business and industrial park development. The required commitment to provide for housing that is affordable will be secured through the existing Affordable Housing Density Bonus agreement program, which requires a percentage of the overall development to be made available at a price point correlated to accepted income levels, as shown below. Issues to Consider – The designation of Strategic Opportunity Sites (SOS) follows the precedent established in the Future Land Use Element for the designation of Activity Centers. The SOS would be designated on the FLUM to indicate an expectation for a higher density residential project integrated to where a significant number of employment opportunities exist or are expected to develop. Following the reasoning behind initiative three, incentivizing mixed income housing 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 722 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing OUTLINE - INITIATIVE FOUR CREATE A STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY SITES (SOS) DESIGNATION PROCESS AND ALLOW FOR INCREASED DENSITY Initiative Four 12/8/2020 2 projects in Activity Centers, a reduction in vehicle miles traveled is the expected outcome with the creation of an SOS. The maximum density allocated to an SOS will be, twenty-five (25) units per acre. The intent is to provide opportunities for housing that is affordable to areas with high employment needs, with a minimum of 20% of the housing that is affordable dedicated to low or very low income levels. Area of change – Future Land Use Element (FLUE) FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION SECTION (Page 25) 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. 1. 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 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. The boundaries of the Urban designated areas 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 designated areas 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, Subdistricts and Overlays that follow, except as allowed by certain policies under Objective 5. b. Non-residential uses including: 1. Essential services as defined by the most recent Land Development Code; ************************************************************************ 17. Research and Technology Park uses subject to criteria identified in the Urban-Mixed Use District, Urban Commercial District and Urban-Industrial District. 18. Strategic Opportunity Sites subject to criteria identified in the Urban-Mixed Use District, Urban Commercial District and Urban-Industrial District. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 723 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing OUTLINE - INITIATIVE FOUR CREATE A STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY SITES (SOS) DESIGNATION PROCESS AND ALLOW FOR INCREASED DENSITY Initiative Four 12/8/2020 3 A. Urban Mixed Use District (Page 27) 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. Certain industrial and commercial uses are also allowed subject to criteria. ****************************************************************************** 1. Urban Residential Subdistrict The purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide for higher densities in an area with fewer natural resource constraints and where existing and planned public facilities are concentrated. This Subdistrict comprises approximately 93,000 acres and 80% of the Urban Mixed Use District. Maximum eligible residential density shall be determined through the Density Rating System but shall not exceed 16 dwelling units per acre except in accordance with the Transfer of Development Rights Section of the Land Development Code. *********************************************************************************************************** 20. Goodlette/Pine Ridge Mixed Use Subdistrict This Subdistrict consists of 31 acres and is located at the northeast quadrant of two major 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 Mixed Use Subdistrict is to provide shopping, personal services and employment for the surrounding residential areas within a convenient travel distance. The Subdistrict also permits multi-family rental residential dwelling units. 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. ************************************************************************************************************* 21. Strategic Opportunity Site Subdistrict The Strategic Opportunity Sites (SOS) Subdistrict is intended to provide for the introduction of mixed income residential use to existing or planned industrial and/or commercial Planned Unit Developments or traditionally zoned projects. The addition of residential use to a geographic area of land with a high degree of employment opportunities (corporate headquarters, technology campus, research and development parks, etc.) provides for a beneficial relationship between households and job locations. This relationship benefits the employees and employers within a proposed SOS, but also benefits all users of the County’s transportation system by reducing the total vehicle miles traveled to satisfy a primary household need of employment. The SOS should be designed in a mixed use environment where landscaped areas, outdoor spaces and internal interconnectivity provide for buffering, usable open space, and a network of pathways for the enjoyment of the employees, residents, and patrons of the Subdistrict. Strategic Opportunity Sites shall be allowed as a subdistrict in the Urban-Mixed Use District, Urban Commercial District and Urban Industrial District, and may include the general uses allowed within each District, the specific uses set forth below, are not subject to the Density Rating System, and shall comply with the following general conditions: 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 724 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing OUTLINE - INITIATIVE FOUR CREATE A STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY SITES (SOS) DESIGNATION PROCESS AND ALLOW FOR INCREASED DENSITY Initiative Four 12/8/2020 4 A. The proposed SOS subdistrict must provide for housing that is affordable in the following manner: 1. Base Density shall be at 4 units per acre with the requirement that an Affordable Housing Density Bonus (AHDB) agreement must be established. 2. The commitment for housing that is affordable shall be authorized through the Affordable Housing Density Bonus (AHDB) program, as specified within LDC section 2.06.00. 3. A minimum of 20 percent of the total units must be committed as affordable housing opportunities from either the Low or Very Low income levels as provided in LDC section 2.06.03.A. All density bonuses awarded through the utilization of the Affordable Housing Density Bonus provided for in 2.6.03 shall be doubled when dedicated to the Low or Very Low income levels. 4. Maximum density shall not exceed 25 units per net acre. 5. Each phase of the project that proposes residential development, must provide for the ratio of market housing units to housing that is affordable units stated within the AHDB agreement. B. When locating in a District other than the Urban Industrial District, the SOS must be abutting, and have direct access to a road classified as an arterial and 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 SOS is not within a residential neighborhood and does not service a predominately residential area. C. When the SOS is located within the Urban Industrial District or includes industrially zoned land, those uses allowed in the Industrial Zoning District shall be permitted provided that the total industrial acreage is not greater than the amount previously zoned or designated industrial. When a SOS is located in the Urban Commercial District or Urban-Mixed Use District, the industrial uses shall be limited to those target industry uses, as defined within the Research and Technology Park Subdistrict of this Element. The Planned Unit Development Ordinance for an SOS project shall list specifically all permitted uses and development standards consistent with the criteria identified in this provision. D. When the SOS project is abutting residentially zoned land, all, or a portion, of the housing is encouraged to be located proximate to such abutting residentially zoned land where feasible. 1. When the proposed project is adjacent to any property occupied by, or zoned to permit, a single family dwelling, the setbacks along the common boundary shall be equal to the proposed zoned building height and a 15-foot Type “B” buffer shall be provided. E. Housing shall be fully integrated with other compatible uses in the project through 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 725 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing OUTLINE - INITIATIVE FOUR CREATE A STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY SITES (SOS) DESIGNATION PROCESS AND ALLOW FOR INCREASED DENSITY Initiative Four 12/8/2020 5 vertical or horizontal mixed use buildings, landscaping, open space and through pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular (multi-modal) interconnections, demonstrated through the submittal of a Mobility plan and an internal capture analysis. 1. The Mobility Plan shall depict the configuration and phasing of all connecting streets, street behind/between out parcels, and other planned local streets, along with all access points from adjoining streets, as shown on a conceptual development plan, with cross-sections of each. The Mobility Plan shall also provide for an analysis of the project’s internal capture. F. Strategic Opportunity Sites shall be a minimum of ten-acres and utilize PUD zoning. 1. The development standards provided within the PUD zoning will ensure that the spatial arrangement and compatibility measures adopted integrate the residential development with the non-residential development of the project. 2. All proposed non-residential land uses that utilize hazardous substance or bulk storage of petroleum or like material will be adequately separated from the proposed residential portion of the Strategic Opportunity Site. G. All projects within a designated Strategic Opportunity Site must satisfy the concurrency management system at the time of Development Order. H. Strategic Opportunity Sites shall include a minimum of 20 percent and up to a maximum of 60 percent of the total acreage within the Subdistrict for residential development. The residential component may provide for a mix of single family and multi-family units or provide for a multi-family only option. I. The land uses within a proposed SOS may contain uses from Residential, Commercial and/or Business Park zoning districts. J. The non-residential portion of the SOS shall utilize the Commercial Five (C-5) Zoning District, as development standards. The residential portion of the SOS shall utilize the residential zoning district development standards closest aligned to the density sought within the SOS. Deviations are permitted in conformity with J. (below). K. Deviations from Land Development Code standards are allowed within a PUD request to implement an approved SOS. Justifications for the deviations shall be based upon their relationship to identified Goals, Objectives or Policies of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. ************************************************************************************* C. Urban Commercial District (Page 56) This District is intended to accommodate almost all new commercial zoning; a variety of residential uses, including higher densities for properties not located within the Urban Coastal Fringe or Urban Residential Fringe Subdistricts; and a variety of non-residential uses. 1. Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict Mixed Use Activity Centers have been designated on the Future Land Use Map Series identified in the Future Land Use Element. The locations are based on intersections of major roads and on 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 726 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing OUTLINE - INITIATIVE FOUR CREATE A STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY SITES (SOS) DESIGNATION PROCESS AND ALLOW FOR INCREASED DENSITY Initiative Four 12/8/2020 6 spacing criteria. When this Plan was originally adopted in 1989, there were 21 Activity Centers. There are now 19 Activity Centers, listed below, which comprise approximately 3,000 acres; this includes three Interchange Activity Centers (#4, 9, 10) which will be discussed separately under the Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict. Two Activity Centers, #19 and 21, have been deleted as they are now within the incorporated City of Marco Island. ****************************************************************************** 14. Seed to Table Commercial Subdistrict The Seed to Table Commercial Subdistrict consists of ± 6.33 acres and is located on the west side of Livingston Road, just north of the terminus of Piper Boulevard. The purpose of this subdistrict is to allow for the development of a parking lot and Collier County utility facilities and services. ************************************************************************************************************* 15. Strategic Opportunity Site Subdistrict The Strategic Opportunity Sites (SOS) Subdistrict is intended to provide for the introduction of mixed income residential use to existing or planned industrial and/or commercial Planned Unit Developments or traditionally zoned projects. The addition of residential use to a geographic area of land with a high degree of employment opportunities (corporate headquarters, technology campus, research and development parks, etc.) provides for a beneficial relationship between households and job locations. This relationship benefits the employees and employers within a proposed SOS, but also benefits all users of the County’s transportation system by reducing the total miles traveled to satisfy a primary household need of employment. The SOS should be designed in a mixed use environment where landscaped areas, outdoor spaces and internal interconnectivity provide for buffering, usable open space, and a network of pathways for the enjoyment of the employees, residents, and patrons of the Subdistrict. Strategic Opportunity Sites shall be allowed as a subdistrict in the Urban Commercial District subject to the criteria set forth under the Strategic Opportunity Sites Subdistrict in the Urban Mixed Use District. *************************************************************************** D. Urban Industrial District (Page 70) The Industrial Land Use District is reserved primarily for industrial type uses and comprises approximately 2,200 acres. Besides basic Industrial uses limited commercial uses are permitted. Retail commercial uses are prohibited, except as accessory to Industrial or Business Park uses. The C-5, C-4 and PUD Commercial Zoning Districts along the perimeter of the designated Urban Industrial District that existed as of October 1997 shall be deemed consistent with this Land Use District. Industrially designated areas shall have access to a road classified as an arterial or collector in the Transportation Element, or access may be provided via a local road that does not service a predominately residential area. Intensities of use shall be those related to: a. Manufacturing; ***************************************************************************** 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 727 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing OUTLINE - INITIATIVE FOUR CREATE A STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY SITES (SOS) DESIGNATION PROCESS AND ALLOW FOR INCREASED DENSITY Initiative Four 12/8/2020 7 n. High density residential as part of a proposed Strategic Opportunity Site. 1. Business Park Subdistrict The Business Park Subdistrict is intended to provide for a mix of industrial uses and non- industrial uses, designed in an attractive park-like environment with low structural density where building coverage ranges between 25% to 45% and landscaped areas provide for buffering and enjoyment by the employees and patrons of the Park. Business Parks shall be allowed as a Subdistrict in the Urban Industrial District subject to the criteria set forth under the Business Park Subdistrict in the Urban-Mixed Use District. 2. Research and Technology Park Subdistrict The Research and Technology Park Subdistrict is intended to provide for a mix of targeted industry uses ‒ aviation/aerospace industry, health technology industry, information technology industry, and light, low environmental impact manufacturing industry ‒ and non-industrial uses, designed in an attractive park-like environment where landscaped areas, outdoor spaces and internal interconnectivity provide for buffering, usable open space, and a network of pathways for the enjoyment of the employees, residents and patrons of the park. Research and Technology Parks shall be allowed as a subdistrict in the Urban ‒ Industrial District subject to the criteria set forth under the Research and Technology Park Subdistrict in the Urban Mixed Use District. 3. Strategic Opportunity Sites Subdistrict The Strategic Opportunity Sites (SOS) Subdistrict is intended to provide for the introduction of mixed income residential use to existing or planned industrial and/or commercial Planned Unit Developments or traditionally zoned projects. The addition of residential use to a geographic area of land with a high degree of employment opportunities (corporate headquarters, technology campus, research and development parks, etc.) provides for a beneficial relationship between households and job locations. This relationship benefits the employees and employers within a proposed SOS, but also benefits all users of the County’s transportation system by reducing the total miles traveled to satisfy a primary household need of employment. The SOS should be designed in a mixed use environment where landscaped areas, outdoor spaces and internal interconnectivity provide for buffering, usable open space, and a network of pathways for the enjoyment of the employees, residents, and patrons of the Subdistrict. Strategic Opportunity Sites shall be allowed as a subdistrict in the Urban Industrial District subject to the criteria set forth under the Strategic Opportunity Sites Subdistrict in the Urban Mixed Use District. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 728 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Initiative Five 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 729 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing OUTLINE INITIATIVE FIVE INCREASE DENSITY ALONG TRANSIT CORRIDORS 12/8/2020 1 Statement of Issue – The final initiative directed by the Housing Plan and the Board at the October 9, 2018 public hearing was for promoting housing that is affordable on major transit corridors. The initiative is recommended based upon two desired outcomes, in addition to adding to the supply of housing that is affordable. The first is that locating higher density housing along transit corridors can help reduce the number of single occupancy vehicles on the overall network, as well as reducing the overall trip length within the urbanized area where the majority of employment opportunities are located and therefore strengthening the spatial relationship between where employment opportunities exist and where employees live. The second intended outcome sits with the frequency of transit service. The addition of higher density housing along existing transit corridors is designed to increase the ridership of the system and the particular route that the housing is situated, and this increased ridership can have a positive effect of reducing the headway, or time between bus service of the particular route. This increased frequency ideally would promote more ridership on the system due to the decrease in wait times and the increase in efficiency for the individual rider. An outcome that would generate more self-funding to the Collier Area Transit system to increase the efficiency of the transit system. Strategy to implement – The Density Rating System of the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan currently allows for an affordable housing project (whether or not along a transit route) to request up to 16 units per gross acre if specific percentages of housing that is affordable is committed to within the project. To further incentivize the development of housing that is affordable along transit routes, the Density Rating System will be amended to provide for additional density for projects that promote the utilization of the transit system within the design of the project and concentrate a majority of the project’s units within close proximity to the project entrance. Additionally, the Transportation Element of the GMP will be amended to explicitly state that higher density along transit routes is a County priority. The design of the project will allocate the highest density of the project occurring in the quarter- mile of the transit station/route, known as the, “Transit Core”. The project will pay close attention to the multi-modal design to provide for sufficient ease of use for the pedestrian or the bicyclist to access the transit station Considerations – The majority of collector and arterial roadways within the County are currently designated as set transit routes and based upon this recognition, the portion of the routes not within the FLUM Urban designation will not be recommended for density above the current 16 units per acre that can currently be requested if utilizing an affordable workforce density bonus. The transit oriented design (TOD) of the project will require that highest level of density will be allocated within a quarter mile of the transit stop along the project’s frontage, with density stepping down as the distance from the project frontage increases. This design function will address the issue of” first and last mile”, often cited as a barrier to transit usage, by reducing the distance between the transit stop and the residential unit of the rider and enhancing the connectivity between the two. Area of change – Transportation Element, Future Land Use Element (FLUE) & Land Development Code (LDC) Transportation Element Objective 12 (Page 22) 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 730 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing OUTLINE INITIATIVE FIVE INCREASE DENSITY ALONG TRANSIT CORRIDORS 12/8/2020 2 Policy 12.10: The County, through the Future Land Use Element and Density Rating System, will prioritize higher density residential and mixed use projects along Urban designated Collier Area Transit (CAT) routes. This prioritization is to encourage a better spatial relationship between the location of employment centers and available housing that is affordable. Increasing the proximity of this relationship between work opportunities and the location of employees provides for a direct benefit to the transportation system as a whole with the reduction in vehicles miles traveled and the availability of transit to reduce the number of single occupancy trips within the system. FLUE - Density Rating System (Page 50) FLUE - B. Density Rating System (Page 50) 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. It is not applicable to the Urban areas encompassed by the Immokalee Area Master Plan and the Golden Gate Area Master Plan; these two Elements have their own density provisions. 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 Density Rating System is applied in the following manner: Within the applicable Urban Designated Areas, a base density of 4 residential dwelling units per gross acre may be allowed, though not an entitlement. This base level of density may be adjusted depending upon the location and characteristics of the project, such as a project proposed as a Transit Oriented Development may seek a base density of 13 residential dwelling units per gross acre. 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 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; and, portions of a project for land uses having an established equivalent residential density in the Collier County Land Development Code. 2. Density Bonuses (51) h. Transit Oriented Development 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 731 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing OUTLINE INITIATIVE FIVE INCREASE DENSITY ALONG TRANSIT CORRIDORS 12/8/2020 3 To further facilitate the prioritization of higher density projects along existing transit routes of the Collier Area Transit (CAT), as expressed within Policy 12.10 of the Transportation Element, density increases may be requested, as identified further below, if a project complies with the following conditions: the project has direct frontage to an existing fixed transit route or on a proposed route as identified for funding on the Transit Development Plan; the project has a Future Land Use Map designation of Urban-Mixed Use District; the project provides for a transit stop along the project’s frontage or is within one-quarter mile of an existing transit stop; the project is proposing multi-family development and the project complies with the transit oriented design standards contained in chapter four (4) of the Land Development Code. A base of thirteen (13) units per gross acre may be requested. Bonus density may be requested through a commitment to provide for housing that is affordable. The maximum density shall not exceed 25 units per gross acre. This base and bonus shall not be combined with other density bonuses. 4. Density Conditions (Page 53) The following density condition applies to all properties subject to the Density Rating System. a. Maximum Density The maximum allowed density shall not exceed sixteen (16) dwelling units per gross acre within the Urban designated area, except for the following: When utilizing the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) provision contained in Section 2.03.07 of the Land Development Code adopted by Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended on June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004; or the density bonus for Project Location on a Transit Route of the Density Rating System in which case the maximum allowed density when providing a commitment for Housing that is Affordable shall not exceed twenty-five (25) dwelling units per acre. LDC 1.08.02 – Definitions “Transit Core” means the area within the inner quarter-mile around a transit station. “Transit Oriented Development” (TOD) means a project or projects, in areas identified in the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP), that is or will be served by existing or planned transit service. These designated areas shall be compact, moderate to high density developments, of multi-modal character, interconnected with other land uses, pedestrian orientated, multi-family and designed to support frequent transit service operating through the Collier Area Transit system on available roadway connections. ************************************************************************************* LDC 2.07.00 – Price Qualifying Program for Housing that is Affordable 2.07.01 – Purpose and Intent 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 732 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing OUTLINE INITIATIVE FIVE INCREASE DENSITY ALONG TRANSIT CORRIDORS 12/8/2020 4 A. Section 2.07.00 is intended to implement and be consistent with the GMP, § 163.3161 et seq. F.S, F.A.C., and the Stipulated Settlement Agreement in DOAH Case No. 89-1299 GM, by providing for price points of housing units that is affordable to gap-moderate-, low-, and very- low-income levels through the use of density bonuses which allow an increase in the number of residential dwelling units per acre allowed on property proposed for development, thereby decreasing the per unit cost of land and development. B. This objective is accomplished by implementing a Price Qualifying program which consists of a commitment to provide for Housing that is Affordable. The purpose of the commitment is to provide increased residential densities to developers who guarantee that a portion of their housing development will provide price points of specific units that align as affordable to households of gap-, moderate-, low-, or very-low-income, thus expanding housing opportunities for households throughout the county. 2.07.02 – Program Criteria The following are required components of the commitment for a Price Qualifying Housing that is Affordable project. A. Price Qualification for Income Levels Served. The price points for all units dedicated as Housing that is Affordable within the project must be a ffordable to income levels as identified within the below chart. 1. Identify the total number of housing units within the development and the total number of units that are affordable, categorized by price points for the level of income, type of unit (single-family or multifamily, owner-occupied or rental), and number of bedrooms, required in the development. 2. The price associated with the Housing that is Affordable unit cannot exceed the thresholds established for the above income levels within the annually updated Collier County Housing Demand Methodology regarding for sale units or the annually updated Board approved Table of Rental Rates regarding rental units. B. Price Point Requirement. The commitment to the sales price or the monthly rent for the Housing that is Affordable units shall be specified to a time period of five years from initial date of sale or rent. 1. The commitment shall require an annual monitoring report be submitted to the Housing Operations and Grant Development Division for a period of five years from the final CO for the project to ensure pricin g does not exceed the thresholds established. Income Level as a percent of Median Income Gap (>120 - <140) Moderate (>80 - <120) Low (>50 - <80) Very Low (<50) 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 733 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing OUTLINE INITIATIVE FIVE INCREASE DENSITY ALONG TRANSIT CORRIDORS 12/8/2020 5 2. The conditions contained in the commitment shall constitute covenants, restrictions, and conditions which shall run with the land and shall be binding upon the property and the owner’s successors and assigns . C. Eligibility Requirement. Owners or renters within the Housing that is Affordable Project must be employed within Collier County as an Essential Service Personnel as defined in the Collier Local Housing Assistance plan or retired. D. Violations and Enforcement. 1. It is a violation of section 2.0 7.00 to rent, sell or occupy, or attempt to rent, sell or occupy, an affordable housing unit provided under the Price Qualifying program except as specifically permitted by the terms of secti on 2.07.00, or to knowingly give false or misleading information with respect to any information required or requested by the County Manager or designee or by other persons pursuant to the authority which is delegated to them by section 2.0 7.00. 2. The County Manager or designee shall have full power to enforce the terms of this section and any developer agreements, rezoning conditions or stipulations, and planned unit development (PUD) conditions and stipulations pursuant to this section and the rights, privileges and conditions described herein, by action at law or equity. In the event that it is determined that a violation has occurred and has not or will not be corrected within 60 days, the certificate of occupancy for all Housing that is affordable units within the development shall be withdrawn and the sanctions or penalties provided in the Housing that is Affordable commitment shall be pursued to the fullest extent allowed by law. E. Commitment. The commitment to provide for Housing that is Affordable shall be in the form of developer’s agreement, a PUD developers commitment or rezoning condition of approval, all of which are subject to the requirements of LDC section 2.07.00. ************************************************************************* 4.02.xx –Housing that is Affordable by Right in Commercial Zoning Districts ****************************************************************************** 4.02.xx –Housing that is Affordable within Activity Centers or an Interchange Activity Centers ****************************************************************************** 4.02.xx –Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Design Standards A. As expressed by Policy 12.10 of the Transportation Element and the Density Rating System of the Future Land Use Element within the Collier Growth Management Plan, higher density multi-family projects shall be prioritized along existing transit routes. B. All proposed multi-family projects that front on an existing Collier Area Transit fixed route or on a proposed route as identified for funding on the Transit Development Plan, are 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 734 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing OUTLINE INITIATIVE FIVE INCREASE DENSITY ALONG TRANSIT CORRIDORS 12/8/2020 6 designated Urban Mixed Use District on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and satisfy the design standards identified below are eligible for 13 units per acre. 1. If proposed route on the Transit Development Plan has not been identified for funding, the applicant may coordinate with Collier Area Transit to secure funding needs. C. Design Standards for TOD. 1. The project must be multi-family and submitted as a Planned Unit Development. 2. A minimum of 50 percent of all units within the project will be located within one-quarter of a mile from a frontage access point. 3. The project shall provide vehicular, pedestrian and bike interconnections throughout the project to ensure multimodal transportation links to the project entrance, as well as adjacent properties, where interconnection to adjacent properties is possible and practicable. 4. Building Height. Not to exceed four stories, with a zoned height of 50 feet and an actual height of 60 feet. 5. Setback for Principal Structures to project boundaries and buffer requirement. a. Front Yard - Minimum 10 feet, maximum 25 feet. b. Side and Rear Yard - 50 percent of building height. When adjacent to any property occupied by, or zoned to permit, a single family dwelling setback to be provided at a one-foot (setback) to one-foot (height) basis. 6. During the rezoning process the project must coordinate with Collier Area Transit (CAT) to provide a commitment to develop a permanent transit stop along the project’s frontage or identify an existing stop within ¼ of a mile of the project’s frontage. 7. Eligible density. a. Baseline Transit Oriented Development – a maximum of 13 units per acre. b. Housing that is Affordable Transit Oriented Development – a maximum of 25 units per acre. D. Additional requirements for a Housing that is Affordable Transit Oriented Development. 1. A commitment that will contain the specifics of the price qualification for income levels served, time frame, eligibility requirements, and violations and enforcement as provided within LDC Section 2.07.02. 2. For units that are for sale, two-thirds (2/3) of the first 9 units of bonus density (6 units) above 13 units per acre must be made available at a price point affordable to the low or very low income level identified within the chart in LDC section 2.07.02.A.1. Two-thirds of the final 3 units of bonus density (2 units) shall be made available at a price point from any of the income levels identified within the chart in LDC section 2.07.02.A.1. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 735 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing OUTLINE INITIATIVE FIVE INCREASE DENSITY ALONG TRANSIT CORRIDORS 12/8/2020 7 3. For units that are for rent , two-thirds (2/3) of all units above 13 units per acre must b e made available at a price point affordable to Low and/or Very Low income levels as provided for within LDC section 2.07.02.A.1 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 736 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Initiative Marketing Brochure 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 737 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing This initiative focuses upon specific design and material requirements of the Land Development Code (LDC). The LDC describes the types of relief that may be granted as well as the criteria for design or construction of a project to offer housing that is affordable. This satisfies county goals and objectives to providing affordable housing for working families, while maintaining public health and safety standards as well as community appearance. Ten (10) cost-saving actions were identified through stakeholder input. County staff refined the list of actions, including the specific codes or policies that may be eligible for relief. A proposed project must also comply with requirements of the Collier County Impact Fee Deferral program or Affordable Housing Density Bonus (AHDB) program. Proposed changes to the LDC are: • Add a list of standards that define relief eligibility. This list would be designated as Section 4.02.39. • Modify language to allow cluster housing land use changes be an administrative approval procedure rather than the current, longer public hearing process, and when compatibility standards are met. This will allow a developer to start building housing units sooner. Cluster housing, or open space developments, helps save open space. Homes in this type of development are situated in groupings relatively close together, while larger areas of open space within the development form a buffer with nearby properties. These open spaces often become common ground that are often used for recreation, gardens and such. This requires changes to LDC Sections 2.03.02 and 4.02.04. • Mandate more frequent review meetings to shorten review times so that priority is given to and qualifying projects are approved more quickly. Requires altering the Development Review Fast Track Resolution 18-40. We are Improving Housing Choices for Working Families ON OCTOBER 24, 2017 The Collier County Board of County Commissioners accepted the Collier County Housing Plan as a blueprint for the County to increase the future housing supply and availability for the County’s working population. The following five (5) initiatives are from the recommendations made by the board for stakeholder/community feedback for the purpose of adoption through Collier County’s public hearing process. To maintain the State of Florida required comprehensive long range plan for Collier County. The GMP petitions are processed three times a year by being submitted to the transmittal and adoption evaluation process. These processes include recording research information for the specific GMP elements, the staff’s analysis, petition hearing by the Collier County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners, notifying the public, and reviews by several state department/agencies. Housing is considered affordable if a family or individual spends no more than 30% of their income to live there. INITIATIVE #1. Regulatory Relief (Cost Maintenance) for Design and Construction of Residential Housing and Want to Hear from YOU ! THE PURPOSE OF THE GMP Collier County does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, source of income, familial status, disability, genetic information, age, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status in the access to, admission into, or employment in, housing programs or activities. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 738 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing INITIATIVE #2. Streamline Commercial Conversion into Modern “Live Work and Play” Communities Streamlining the process for developers who convert commercially zoned land to mixed use and residential uses by replacing the public hearing process with an administrative approval procedure. This supports the desirable result of housing located on or near commercially zoned sites throughout the county. Having residences closer to businesses enhances access and convenience to employment, healthcare, groceries and other daily needs and personal services. It also encourages residents to seek other modes of travel like walking and biking, and supports an overall thriving economy. The current Growth Management Plan (GMP) allows density up to 16 units per acre for such conversions, and the LDC allows a mix of uses in commercially zoned districts C-1 through C-3, however both require lengthy zoning processes. Proposed changes to the GMP include: • Add housing that is affordable by increasing densities at 16 units per acre as a part of the density rating system for conversion projects. Increasing densities is an incentive for developers and homebuilders as it allows them to provide more dwelling choices to the public, and increase their potential revenue. Affordability must be committed through an Affordable Housing Density Bonus (AHDB) Agreement, Developers Agreement, Planned Unit Development (PUD) commitment, or compliance with terms and conditions of the Impact Fee Deferral program. • Multiple proposed LDC amendments will establish the mix of uses and multifamily basis that will qualify affordable parameters as allowable uses in conventional commercial districts. Those projects will still be subject to criteria for public facilities as determined by an impact analysis and must meet compatibility standards to ensure the project has the public benefit of reduced intensity, or less traffic overall. INCOME LEVELS PERCENT OF MEDIAN INCOME Gap >120 to <140 Moderate >80 to <120 Low >50 to <80 Very Low <50 Collier County LDC 2.06.03 (Ordinance 19-02) INITIATIVE #3. Redeveloped Activity Centers to include Mixed-Income Family Housing The greatest need for affordable housing is in close proximity to employment, healthcare, groceries, and other daily needs and personal services. This initiative is to encourage housing in the County’s 20 Activity Centers. Current County programs normally provide housing at single-household income levels. This initiative is designed to stimulate housing within areas of up to 25 units per acre where households of mixed economic levels are served. Proposed changes to the GMP include: • Increase density from the currently allowable 16 units per acre to a maximum of 25 units per acre in activity centers, if a portion of the additional units are committed at prices that serve a mix of at least two income levels of the county’s defined affordability thresholds as seen in the chart above.CHARACTER IMAGEPROJECT #: 20149700-147 DATE: MAY 2018 GOLDEN GATE ACTIVITY CENTER COLLIER COUNTY, FL VANTAGE POINT VIEW 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 739 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing COLLIER COUNTY CONTACT INFORMATION Collier County Community and Human Services Division 3339 East Tamiami Trail, Building H, Room 211, Naples, FL 34112 Phone: 239-252-CARE (2273) Email: housinginfo@colliercountyfl.gov Website: CollierCountyHousing.com PLEASE SUBMIT COMMENTS ONLINE AT www.colliercountyhousing.com. Go to About and click on Feedback. The form will go to Collier County Housing Operations staff. INITIATIVE #4. Expansion Density Recommendations for Work/Live Communities Strategic Opportunity Sites (SOS) are a new concept that recognizes larger development projects featuring corporate headquarters or similarly substantial employment centers. These locations represent key areas, with high potential to provide the greatest benefits in the wake of continued growth. The location of residential properties near these areas of employment are also encouraged. The best way to introduce this integrated pattern of development is to provide an incentive to developers. Proposed changes to the GMP include: • To establish the SOS as a future land use designation. This will allow a developer to seek this designation through a Future Land Use Map change, while meeting the necessary requirements and agreements. The density attained is subject to a new formula that is proposed to allocate the highest densities to projects that serve a mix of income levels and that accommodate lower income levels, allowing for more housing options that are affordable. • Allow developers to increase densities up to 25 units per acre as long as they show that 50 percent of the housing units qualify as affordable; demonstrate a mix of income levels; meet mixed-use ratios and follow design and buffering requirements. INITIATIVE #5. Increase Transit Route Corridors for the Benefit of Working Families withing the “Center City” Developments The location of housing that is affordable for working families is naturally beneficial to the transportation system, as well as those who live within a convenient distance. This initiative provides for an increased density incentive to developers as long as the housing project meets affordable eligibility; incorporates transit oriented design (TOD) elements and concentrates a majority of the dwelling units within a convenient walking distance, defined as an area covered by a 5-minute walk, or about 1/4-mile. Proposed changes to the GMP include: • Apply transit supportive density levels (minimum of seven units per acre) to market rate development that is designed to orient toward transit and stimulate housing that is affordable. With increased density in these locations, greater efficiencies in transit use may also be achieved. The principles of TOD also align with the potential for autonomous vehicles and other transportation advancements. • Change the Transportation Element to state that a priority is placed on locating higher density housing along transit corridors. • Change the Density Rating System to allow TOD market rate projects be eligible for increased density incentives. Specifically, up to 13 units per acre through PUD approval. Then, from 13 up to 25 units per acre through PUD approval and dedication that the additional units are committed at prices affordable to a range of income levels. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 740 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing October 9th, 2018 BCC Recap 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 741 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Page 1 October 9, 2018 COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB) Airport Authority AGENDA Board of County Commission Chambers Collier County Government Center 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor Naples, FL 34112 October 9, 2018 9:00 AM Commissioner Andy Solis, District 2 - BCC Chair Commissioner William L. McDaniel Jr., Dist. 5 - BCC Vice-Chair; CRAB Co-Chair Commissioner Donna Fiala, District 1; CRAB Co-Chair Commissioner Burt Saunders, District 3 Commissioner Penny Taylor, District 4 NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEMS MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. ALL REGISTERED SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE 3) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER “PUBLIC PETITIONS.” PUBLIC PETITIONS ARE LIMITED TO THE PRESENTER, WITH A MAXIMUM TIME OF TEN MINUTES. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 742 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Page 2 October 9, 2018 WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING 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. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53 AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. 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, THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DIVISION LOCATED AT 3335 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, SUITE 1, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112-5356, (239) 252-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DIVISION. LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M 1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE A. Father Paul D'Angelo of St. John the Evangelist Catholic Church Invocation Given 2. AGENDA AND MINUTES A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended (ex parte disclosure provided by commission members for consent agenda.) Approved and/or Adopted w/changes – 5/0 Commissioner Solis abstained from voting on Item #16A3 B. September 6, 2018 – BCC/Budget Hearing Meeting Minutes Approved as presented – 5/0 C. September 11, 2018 – BCC/Regular Meeting Minutes Approved as presented – 5/0 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 743 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Page 3 October 9, 2018 D. September 20, 2018 BCC/Budget Hearing Meeting Minutes Approved as presented – 5/0 3. AWARDS AND RECOGNITIONS A. EMPLOYEE B. ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS C. RETIREES D. EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH 1) Recommendation to recognize Lorraine Lantz, Principal Planner, Growth Management Department as the September 2018 Employee of the Month. Recognized 4. PROCLAMATIONS (One Motion to Adopt all Proclamations) A. Proclamation designating October 20, 2018 as Children's Business Fair Day in Collier County. To be accepted by Michael Dalby, Nikkie Dvorchak, Madeline Young, Amanda Beights and Alex Breault . Adopted – 5/0 B. Proclamation designating October 2018 as Domestic Violence Awareness Month in Collier County. To be accepted by Linda Oberhaus, Chief Executive Officer - Shelter for Abused Women & Children and Collier County Sheriff Kevin Rambosk. Adopted – 5/0 C. Proclamation recognizing Collier County Public School's 19th Annual Red Walk, to be held on October 19, 2018 at Lely Elementary School. To be accepted by Christa Crehan, Principal, Lely Elementary School and Craig Greusel, Program Director. Adopted – 5/0 5. PRESENTATIONS 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 744 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Page 4 October 9, 2018 A. Presentation of the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award for Fiscal Year 2018 from the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) presented to the Office of Management and Budget. To be accepted by Mark Isackson, Corporate Financial Planning and Management Services Director. Presented B. Presentation of the Collier County Business of the Month for October 2018 to The Immokalee Foundation, Inc. To be accepted by Noemi Perez, Executive Director; Laura Simmelink, Development Director; and Amber Barr, Program Services Director. Also in attendance is Bethany Sawyer representing the Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce. PowerPoint presentation by Noemi Perez; Annual Report requested by Commissioners Added: C. Commissioner Solis announced the featured artist – Lynda Fay Braun 6. PUBLIC PETITIONS 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE CURRENT OR FUTURE AGENDA A. Trent Dunn – Cannabis dispensaries B. Rae Ann Burton – Panthers in Golden Gate Estates C. Garrett Beyrent – Innovation Zone, Golden Gate Farmer’s Market 8. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS 10. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 11. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT To be heard at 10:00 a.m. (Per Agenda Change Sheet) A. Recommendation to direct staff to continue implementation of the Community Housing Plan (CHP) by taking necessary actions to: (1) Continue work on a Mixed Income Housing Incentive Program; (2) Provide regulatory relief to certain housing applications (including senior, veteran’s, 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 745 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Page 5 October 9, 2018 and special needs housing); (3) Develop a streamlined process for commercial to residential conversions; (4) Develop guidelines to incentivize mixed-income residential housing in future and redeveloped activity centers; 5) Develop a process to identify and allow for increased density in Strategic Opportunity Sites; (6) Provide an increase in density in the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) areas and along transit corridors. (Cormac Giblin, Grants and Housing Development Manager; Community and Human Services Division) Motion to deny presentation recommendations for #1 - Approved 5/0; Motion to approve presentation recommendations for #2 - Approved 5/0; Motion to approve presentation recommendations for #3 - Approved 3/2 (Commissioner McDaniel and Commissioner Fiala opposed); Motion to deny presentation recommendations for #4 - Failed 2/3 Commissioner Saunders, Commissioner Taylor and Commissioner Solis opposed); Motion to accept recommendation as presented with exception of activity centers, staff to bring back recommendations - Approved 4/1 (Commissioner Fiala opposed); Motion to deny presentation recommendations for #5 - Failed 2/3 Commissioner Saunders, Commissioner Taylor and Commissioner Solis opposed); Motion to approve presentation recommendations as shown on the screen - Approved 3/2 Commissioner Fiala and Commissioner McDaniel opposed); Motion to approve presentation recommendations as shown on the screen #6 - Approved 3/2 (Commissioner Fiala and Commissioner McDaniel opposed) B. Recommendation to approve the Fiscal Year 2018-19 Strategic Marketing Plan for the Naples, Marco Island, Everglades Convention & Visitors Bureau (CVB) and make a finding that this plan promotes tourism. (Jack Wert, Tourism Division Director) Motion to approve the Strategic Marketing Plan and that it supports Tourism - Approved 5/0 C. Recommendation to approve release of $250,000 from Tourism Division Emergency Advertising Reserves to support an integrated marketing and promotion campaign to mitigate the future negative visitor impact of the Red 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 746 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Page 6 October 9, 2018 Tide crisis in Collier County and make a finding that this action promotes tourism. (Jack Wert, Tourism Division Director) Approved - 5/0 D. Recommendation to approve an Interlocal Agreement between the District Schools of Collier County (District) and the Board of County Commissioners (Board), that supersedes the prior Interlocal Agreement and meets new reimbursement guidelines implemented by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), authorize the payment of 3,038,402.12 to the District for shelter and transportation cost incurred during Hurricane Irma, and authorize all necessary budget amendments. Dan Summers, Bureau of Emergency Management Division Director) Approved – 5/0 12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT 13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS 14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY A. AIRPORT B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS A. Proposed BCC Future Workshop Schedule: February 5, 2019 BCC/Transit System Workshop at 9:00 a.m., February 5, 2019 BCC/Fertilizer Ordinance Workshop at 1:00 p.m. and March 5, 2019 BCC Land Use Map Workshop B. Commissioner Taylor – Adding a second review step regarding the CRA Master plan updates with respect to the LDC Regulations and The Overlay Requirements C. Commissioner Saunders – Drafting an ordinance to prevent Gas Pump Skimmers D. Commissioner Solis – Nationwide shortage of healthcare professionals and mental health facilities; Bringing back an ordinance creating the Behavioral Health Advisory Committee E. Commissioner Solis – Adjourned - Consensus 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 747 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Page 7 October 9, 2018 16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately. Approved and/or Adopted w/changes – 5/0 Commissioner Solis abstained from voting on Item #16A3) A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT 1) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the potable water and sewer facilities for RaceTrac at Davis Boulevard, PL20160002277, accept unconditional conveyance of a portion of the potable water and sewer facilities, and to authorize the County Manager, or his designee, to release the Utilities Performance Security (UPS) and Final Obligation Bond in the total amount of $18,093.40 to the Project Engineer or the Developer’s designated agent. A final inspection to discover defects was conducted by staff on August 22, 2018, in coordination with Public Utilities, and the facilities were found to be satisfactory and acceptable 2) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the potable water and sewer facilities for Vanderbilt Commons, PL20170000562, accept unconditional conveyance of the potable water facilities and a portion of the sewer facilities, and to authorize the County Manager, or his designee, to release the Utilities Performance Security (UPS) and Final Obligation Bond in the total amount of $38,553.68 to the Project Engineer or the Developer’s designated agent. A final inspection to discover defects was conducted by staff on August 28, 2018, in coordination with Public Utilities, and the facilities were found to be satisfactory and acceptable Commissioner Solis abstained from voting during Agenda Changes 3) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the potable water facilities for Villages of Monterey Clubhouse, PL20170001728, accept unconditional conveyance of a portion of the potable water facilities, and to authorize the County Manager, or his designee, to release the Utilities Performance Security (UPS) and Final Obligation 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 748 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Page 8 October 9, 2018 Bond in the total amount of $6,129.24 to the Project Engineer or the Developer’s designated agent. A final inspection to discover defects was conducted by staff on August 27, 2018, in coordination with Public Utilities, and the facilities were found to be satisfactory and acceptable 4) Recommendation to approve final acceptance and unconditional conveyance of the sewer utility facilities for Collier Park of Commerce Phase 2, PL20160000500 and to authorize the County Manager, or his designee, to release the Utilities Performance Security UPS) and Final Obligation Bond in the total amount of $5,216.45 to the Project Engineer or the Developer’s designated agent . A final inspection to discover defects was conducted by Development Review staff on September 4, 2018, in coordination with Public Utilities, and the facilities were found to be satisfactory and acceptable 5) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the potable water and sewer facilities for Hammock Cove Tract C, PL20170000348, accept unconditional conveyance of a portion of the sewer facilities, and to authorize the County Manager, or his designee, to release the Utilities Performance Security (UPS) and Final Obligation Bond in the total amount of $6,074.82 to the Project Engineer or the Developer’s designated agent. A final inspection to discover defects was conducted by staff on August 30, 2018, in coordination with Public Utilities, and the facilities were found to be satisfactory and acceptable 6) Recommendation to approve and Authorize the Chairman to sign the Utility Facilities Quit-Claim Deed and Bill of Sale between Collier County and Minto Sabal Bay, LLC, in order to correct an error in the previously recorded Utility Facilities Warranty Deed and Bill of Sale for Isles of Collier Preserve Phase 8 – Dog Park, PL20180001856, in which the Developer mistakenly conveyed sanitary sewer facilities to the County even though no such facilities exist . 7) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Abaco Pointe, (Application 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 749 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Page 9 October 9, 2018 Number PL20180001040) approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security. W/stipulations 8) Recommendation to approve the release of a code enforcement lien with a value of $289,730.43 for payment of $680.43 in the code enforcement actions entitled Board of County Commissioners v. Irene Sylva Est and Rafael Rosas, Code Enforcement Board Case No. CESD20150002305 relating to property located at 141 20th Avenue NE, Collier County, Florida. Related to several structures erected on the property without obtaining Collier County building permits 9) Recommendation to approve Change Order No. 1 for Johnson Engineering, Inc., for the “Sunshine Blvd. from 17th Ave. SW to Green Boulevard” LAP project, for the design of sidewalk and pedestrian bridge improvements in the amount of $27,604 (Project No. 33505). Due to an increase in work order assignments to cover the cost of a bridge hydraulic recommendation analysis for the pedestrian bridge, consisting of a bridge hydraulic and scour analysis report and a canal topographic survey 10) Recommendation to approve an agreement for $318,142 with Quality Enterprises USA, Inc. pursuant to Annual Contract “14-6212 Bridge Repairs and Maintenance” for repairs on Bridge 030149 (Bluebill Avenue over Naples Park Canal), Project Number 66066. To repair several spalled areas, cracking, pile corrosion and delamination referenced in FDOT reports 11) Recommendation to authorize the Chairman to execute Change Order No. 2 to Contract No. 17-7128 in the amount of $29,028.35 with APTIM Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc., for additional professional engineering services as required for the “Wiggins Pass Channel and Doctors Pass Channel Dredging Project.” To provide (necessary) additional engineering services, regulatory agency coordination, and a time extension of 30 days to the existing contract to facilitate final engineering and the close out certification process 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 750 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Page 10 October 9, 2018 12) Recommendation to award a Work Order to Preferred Materials, Inc., for construction of the “Airport Road and Davis Boulevard (Phase2) - Northbound Right Turn Lane” project in the amount of $518,443.49 Project 60148). Specified under Contract #16-6663 13) This item was continued from the September 25, 2018 BCC Meeting. Recommendation to approve the release of a code enforcement lien with a value of $33,130.36 for payment of $10,000 in the code enforcement action entitled Board of County Commissioners v. AT&T Wireless Services of FL, Code Enforcement Board Case No. CEPM20150012708 relating to 1173 Sun Century Road, Collier County, Florida. For fines associated with a garage with roof damage 14) Recommendation to award Invitation to Bid (ITB) No. 18-7430 Landscape Maintenance Vendors” to Florida Land Maintenance d/b/a Commercial Land Maintenance and Superior Landscaping & Lawn Service, Inc. As detailed in the Executive Summary B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners, acting as the Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB), approve a Lease Modification for Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA office located at 3750 Bayshore Drive with 3750 Bayshore Drive, LLC and authorize the Chairman to sign. To secure short-term office space for the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA until a build-out of the new office space is completed, which is expected in the first quarter of 2019 C. PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 1) Recommendation to approve a First Amendment to Lease Agreement with South Seas Northwest Condominium Apartments of Marco Island, Inc., to extend the lease term to maintain 800 MHz communications equipment operating at that location. Extending the lease term to October 14, 2021 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 751 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Page 11 October 9, 2018 2) Recommendation to correct a scrivener’s error in the Executive Summary for Bid Number 18-7314 “95th Avenue North Public Utilities Renewal,” Project Numbers 60139 and 70120, awarded to Douglas N. Higgins, Inc., on June 26, 2018 as Agenda Item #11G. 3) Recommendation to terminate the Siemen’s Guaranteed Energy, Water, and Wastewater Performance Savings Contract assigned to the Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) by Florida Governmental Utility Authority (FGUA) for non-appropriation. Terminating a contract dated July 25, 2016 D. PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT 1) Recommendation to approve the conveyance of a Raw Water Utility Easement along the eastern edge of the Gordon River Greenway to the City of Naples. An easement over a parcel of County-owned land necessary to construct, operate and maintain infrastructure 2) Recommendation to approve the FY18-19 contract with the State of Florida Department of Health (DOH) for the operation of the Collier County Health Department in the amount of $1,491,400 . Effective October 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019 3) Recommendation to authorize Change Order No. 1 in the amount of 59,998.24 against a purchase order issued under Contract #17-7154 for Structural and Mechanical Pool Contractor with Omni Aquatics, Inc. To return the activity pool at the aquatic facility in Immokalee to fully operational and operate within the local, state and federal law regulations 4) Recommendation to approve two (2) after-the-fact grant requests to the Florida Communities Trust Grant from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection; one (1) application in the amount of 163,642 is to enhance recreational amenities available at Isles of Capri Neighborhood Park, and the other application in the amount of 735,000 is to purchase the Gore property which is desig nated as Strategic Habitat Conservation Area for Conservation Collier. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 752 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Page 12 October 9, 2018 As detailed in the Executive Summary 5) Recommendation to approve an out of cycle Collier County Tourist Development Council (TDC) Grant Application for Beach Park Facilities in the amount of $200,000 for restroom improvements and a feasibility study for the construction of a Park Ranger Station at Barefoot Beach Preserve Park, authorize necessary budget amendment, and make a finding that the expenditure promotes tourism. For upgrades to the 27-year old facility 6) Recommendation to approve a Conservation Bank Agreement between Collier County and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and all documents necessary, to create the Pepper Ranch Preserve Conservation Bank, generating U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service panther habitat unit mitigation credits to mitigate for proposed impacts to panther habitat during future County projects and to authorize any Budget Amendments necessary to fund the new Pepper Ranch Preserve Bank Endowment Fund 673 in the amount of 253,600 for interim maintenance at the Pepper Ranch Preserve Conservation Bank. To provide 8,669 panther habitat unit mitigation credits for development of future projects at a cost savings of $1,077,123.25 7) Recommendation to adopt the Museum Division 2018 Strategic Plan. As detailed in the Executive Summary E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT 1) Recommendation to renew the annual Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (COPCN) for Ambitrans Medical Transport, Inc. to provide Class 2 Advanced Life Support (ALS) inter- facility transport ambulance service for a period of one year. To provide Advanced Life Support inter-facility transport services in Collier County by a private provider 2) Recommendation to approve a five-year agreement with Marsh ClearSight, Inc. in an annual amount of $138,000 for the purchase of Risk Management Information System Software (RMIS) and authorize the Chairman to sign Contract #18-7341. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 753 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Page 13 October 9, 2018 To manage damage claims presented against the County in an efficient, effective manner and assure the standardization and continuity of the risk management processes through a common Risk Management Information System 3) Recommendation to accept a Federally-Funded Sub-award and Grant Agreement through the Florida Division of Emergency Management for reimbursement of expenditures associated with preparation and recovery from the Florida 30th Avenue Fire (Net Fiscal Impact: 82,964.96). Requires a 25% local share in the amount of $20,741.24 4) Recommendation to award Invitation to Negotiate (ITN) #18-7321, Gas and Diesel Fuel Multi-Agency Cooperative Purchase,” to Palmdale Oil Company, Inc., authorize the Chairman to execute the agreement, and terminate the award of #18-7406 “Emergency Fuel.” To provide gasoline and diesel fuel for County vehicles 5) Recommendation to approve a Florida Emergency Medical Services County Grant Application, Request for Grant Fund Distribution Form and Resolution for the funding of Training and Medical/Rescue Equipment in the amount of $63,545 and to authorize the necessary Budget Amendment. Resolution 2018-171 6) Recommendation to authorize routine and customary budget amendments appropriating carry forward budget in the amount of 8,944,843.63 for approved open purchase orders into Fiscal Year 2019. 7) Recommendation to approve the Administrative Reports prepared by the Procurement Services Division for change orders and other contractual modifications requiring Board approval. As detailed in the Executive Summary 8) Recommendation to approve the administrative report prepared by the Procurement Services Division for disposal of property and notification of revenue disbursement. As detailed in the Executive Summary 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 754 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Page 14 October 9, 2018 F. COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS 1) Recommendation to award Solicitation No. 18-7434 for Pelican Bay Streetlight Pole Repairs to SPE Utility Contractors FD, LLC in the amount of $97,894 and authorize the Chairman to execute the attached agreement. To straighten 110 streetlight poles and replace four pathway bollard lights damaged by Hurricane Irma 2) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds) to the Fiscal Year 2017-18 Adopted Budget. Resolution 2018-172 3) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds) to the Fiscal Year 2018-19 Adopted Budget. Resolution 2018-173 4) Recommendation to award RFP #18-7281R, “Tourism Fulfillment and Call Center Services” to Faneuil, Inc., for $21,772.97, authorize the Chairman to execute the associated agreement, and make a finding that this action promotes tourism. To fulfill requests for information, answer incoming requests from toll-free numbers, publication responses and the Internet 5) Recommendation to approve the submittal of a grant application to Florida Sports Foundation in the amount of $25,000 to offset a portion of the operating expenses to host the 2018 Football University (FBU) National Championships in Collier County, authorize the County Manager to accept the award and process any budget amendments and make a finding that this action promotes tourism. The event will take place December 15-20, 2018 6) Recommendation to use Tourist Development Tax Promotion Funds to support the upcoming November 2018 Sports Tourism Events up to 17,800 and make a finding that these expenditures promote tourism. For the Paradise Coast Softball Invitational November 16-18, 2018 and Trophy Fish Bowl Lacrosse event November 17-18, 2018 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 755 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Page 15 October 9, 2018 7) Recommendation to use Tourist Tax Promotion Funds to sponsor the 2018 Powerboat Nationals Formula 4 Global Championship Event October 27-28, 2018, approve reimbursement of operating expenses for this purpose, and make a finding that these event expenditures promote tourism. 8) Recommendation to approve Tourist Development Tax Promotion and Marketing funding to support the upcoming Winter Nationals Senior Softball Tournament on November 6-11, 2018 up to $6,105 and make a finding that these expenditures promote tourism. 9) Recommendation to approve the submittal of a grant application to Visit Florida in the amount of $70,000 for the Tourism Recovery Grant Program for Red Tide in Collier County, authorize the County Manager to accept the award and process any necessary budget amendments and make a finding that this action promotes tourism. 10) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners reviews and approves the proposed FY2019 Action Plan for Leo E. Ochs, Jr., County Manager. As detailed in the Executive Summary G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY 1) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to execute the attached Resolution authorizing execution of Joint Participation Agreement Contract No. G0E50 Supplement One with the Florida Department of Transportation for construction of a new terminal facility with associated entrance, parking, and related safety improvements at the Marco Island Executive Airport . Resolution 2018-174 H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS 1) Recommendation to extend the 2018 Tax Roll at the request of Tax Collector Larry Ray. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 756 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Page 16 October 9, 2018 Extending it past November 1 due to Value Adjustment Board petitions 2) Recommendation to approve the FY 2018 SCAAP letter delegating authority to Sheriff Kevin Rambosk to be the official grant applicant and contact person, or his designee, and to receive, expends the payment and make any necessary budget amendments of the FY 2018 of the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) grant funds. 3) Recommendation to serve as the local coordinating unit of government for the Florida Department of Law Enforcement’s Federal Fiscal Year 2017 Edward Byrne Memorial, Justice Assistance Grant JAG) Countywide Program and (1) authorize the Chairman to execute the Certification of Participation; (2) designate the Sheriff as the official applicant and the Sheriff’s office staff as grant financial and program managers; (3) authorize the acceptance of the grant if and when awarded; and (4) approve associated budget amendments and approve the Collier County Sheriff’s Office to receive and expend the grant funds. 4) To record in the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners, the check number (or other payment method), amount, payee, and purpose for which the referenced disbursements were drawn for the periods between September 13 and 26, 2018 pursuant to Florida Statute 136.06. 5) Request that the Board approve and determine valid public purpose for invoices payable and purchasing card transactions as of October 3, 2018. K. COUNTY ATTORNEY 1) Recommendation to appoint two members to the Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee. Resolution 2018-175: Appointing Norma R. Lees-Davis and re-appointing Ronald J. Jefferson to 4-year terms expiring October 6, 2022 2) Recommendation to reappoint a member to the Collier County Citizen Corps. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 757 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Resolution 2018-176: Reappointing Barry Gerenstein to a 4-year term expiring November 5, 2022 3) Recommendation to reappoint two members to the Historic/Archaeological Preservation Board. Resolution 2018-177: Reappointing Elaine Reed and Eugene V. Erjavec, Jr. to 3-year terms expiring October 1, 2021 4) Recommendation to reappoint a member to the Lely Golf Estates Beautification Advisory Committee. Resolution 2018-178: Re-appointing Kathleen Dammert to a 4- year term expiring October 1, 2022 5) Recommendation to reappoint a member to the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee. Resolution 2018-179: Reappointing Annette Kniola to a 4-year term expiring October 13, 2022 6) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment for final compensation in the amount of$8,000 for Parcel 404RDUE, including all attorney and expert fees, in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Jarrett Cox, et al, Case No. 16-CA-1313, required for the Golden Gate Boulevard Expansion Project No. 60145, (from 20th St. E. to Everglades Blvd.). (Fiscal Impact: $4,800) A 6,965-square foot perpetual, non-exclusive road right-of-way, drainage and utility easement 17. SUMMARY AGENDA - This section is for advertised public hearings and must meet the following criteria: 1) A recommendation for approval from staff; 2) Unanimous recommendation for approval by the Collier County Planning Commission or other authorizing agencies of all members present and voting; 3) No written or oral objections to the item received by staff, the Collier County Planning Commission, other authorizing agencies or the Board, prior to the commencement of the BCC meeting on which the items are scheduled to be heard; and 4) No individuals are registered to speak in opposition to the item. For those items which are quasi-judicial in nature, all participants must be sworn in. Adopted — 5/0 Page 17 October 9,2018 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 758 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Page 18 October 9, 2018 A. Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments appropriating carry forward, transfers and supplemental revenue) to the Fiscal Year 2018-19 Adopted Budget. Resolution 2018-180 18. ADJOURN Consensus INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD’S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER’S OFFICE AT 252-8383. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 759 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing October 9th, 2018 Executive Summary & PowerPoint 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 760 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing 10/09/2018 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to direct staff to continue implementation of the Community Housing Plan (CHP) by taking necessary actions to: (1) Continue work on a Mixed Income Housing Incentive Program; 2) Provide regulatory relief to certain housing applications (including senior, veteran’s, and special needs housing); (3) Develop a streamlined process for commercial to residential conversions via the Hearing Examiner; (4) Develop guidelines to incentivize mixed-income residential housing in future and redeveloped activity centers; (5) Develop a process to identify and allow for increased density in Strategic Opportunity Sites; (6) Provide an increase in density in the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) areas and along transit corridors. (Cormac Giblin, Grants and Housing Development Manager; Community and Human Services Division) OBJECTIVE: To implement new and modified approaches to address Collier County’s housing affordability issues. CONSIDERATIONS: Collier County has a statutory obligation to provide housing for its current and anticipated population, including those that are most vulnerable. Housing that is affordable is part of a community’s infrastructure and therefore impacts the entire community. First responders, health care professionals, teachers, and others have been historically priced out of the housing market. A vibrant and sustainable community needs to develop specific strategies to accommodate the housing needs of its workforce. In response to community concerns, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) commissioned the development of a CHP in March 2016 with a broad cross-section of stakeholders appointed in June 2016. In 2017, the Urban Land Institute (ULI) performed a panel review of the housing situation in Collier County. Among their conclusions is that Collier County needed to reframe its view of housing to meet better the needs of the 40% of the population (58,685 households) currently living in Collier County that are cost-burdened, spending more than 30% of their income on housing. This large segment of Collier County’s population is working and living here un-affordably. The community stakeholders presented the CHP to the Board on October 25, 2017. The plan includes approximately thirty (30) specific recommendations including housing for seniors, veterans, and those with special needs. The Board accepted the CHP and staff initiated an implementation schedule. This request is the third of a series of implementation actions to be presented to the Board. Some of the key recommendations include a continuation of work on a Mixed Income Housing Program, regulatory relief for certain affordable housing applications (including senior, veterans, and special needs housing), develop a streamlined process for commercial to residential conversions, develop incentivization guidelines for mixed-income residential housing in future and redeveloped activity centers, develop a process to allow for increased density in Strategic Opportunity Sites and provide an increase in density in the CRA areas and along transit corridors. Specific recommendations include: A. Mixed-Income Housing Incentive Program - Direct staff to work with the development community, bankers, and other interested parties to develop Growth Management Plan (GMP) and Land Development Code (LDC) amendments that will create a market-based mixed-income housing program. Provide market incentives for the inclusion of housing that is affordable in new developments. The market chooses how to meet the goal with multiple options offered to 11.A Packet Pg. 43 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 761 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing 10/09/2018 participants. Increased Density and Impact Fee Relief provides an incentive to the developer with more market-rate units. Seek a “Win/Win” outcome. B. Provide Regulatory Relief to Certain Housing Applications - Direct staff to review regulations and develop LDC amendments that will provide development relief to certain residential land use applications (including senior, veteran’s, and special needs housing) that voluntarily provide a portion of their units as housing that is affordable. Creating development incentives for developments that voluntarily include housing that is affordable will encourage the development of more affordable units. Staff will work with the Development Services Advisory Committee to explore and vet possible changes to the LDC that would provide regulatory relief and bring suggested amendments back for Board approval. C. Allow for Commercial to Residential conversions via Hearing Examiner - Direct staff to develop GMP and LDC amendments that will streamline the Commercial to Residential conversion process via the Hearing Examiner for developments that voluntarily provide a portion of their units as housing that is affordable. This recommendation would seek to streamline the approval process for developments seeking to down-zone from existing Commercial uses to Residential, in exchange for those developments providing a portion of their residential units as housing that is affordable. Historically the vast majority of these requests have been approved by the Board. This process would be limited to properties located within Activity Centers or that are identified as “Commercial/Consistent by Plan.” The Board sets clear criteria for approval and staff carries it out via the Hearing examiner. Maintains public transparency. D. Develop incentivization guidelines to incentivize mixed-income residential housing - Direct staff to develop GMP and LDC amendments that will encourage the inclusion of residential units in Activity Centers for developments that voluntarily provide a portion of their units as housing that is affordable. Encourages residential uses near areas with existing infrastructure. Allows for housing that is affordable to be developed throughout the north/south corridors of the county. E. Develop a process to designate certain Strategic Opportunity Sites and allow for increased density (greater than 16u/a) - Direct staff to develop GMP and LDC amendments that will create a process for the creation and designation of Strategic Opportunity Sites allowing for increased density (above 16u/a) for developments that voluntarily provide a portion of their units as housing that is affordable. A main recommendation of the 2017 ULI Study is that Collier County should allow for greater residential densities in order to mitigate high land and development costs. Strategic Opportunity sites would be designated by the Board as areas where higher densities are encouraged. A Strategic Opportunity Site may be attractive for a new corporate headquarters campus, a regional commercial center, or an institution of higher learning. F. Provide an increase in density in the Community Redevelopment Agency areas and along 11.A Packet Pg. 44 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 762 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing 10/09/2018 transit corridors - Direct staff to develop GMP and LDC amendments that will allow increased density and other incentives in CRAs and along transit corridors for developments that voluntarily provide a predefined portion of their units as Housing that is affordable. To incentivize development in CRA areas and along transit corridors where infrastructure already exists. Locating housing that is affordable on major transit corridors and in CRA areas is a recommendation of the 2017 ULI study. CRAs typically need additional incentives to increase their property values and encourage new development. FISCAL IMPACT: There are no immediate and direct Fiscal impacts to approving the items in this Executive Summary. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Approval of these policies, strategies, ordinances, and amendments will assist Collier County in meeting the goals of the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: For those implementation actions that are Board approved, the County Attorney’s Office will work with staff to ensure that the resolutions, amendments to resolutions, ordinances (GMP and LDC) are approved for form and legality. Accordingly, this Item is approved to form and legality and requires a majority vote for Board approval. - JAB RECOMMENDATION: To direct staff to continue implementation of the CHP by taking necessary actions to: (1) Continue work on a Mixed Income Housing Incentive Program; (2) Provide regulatory relief to certain housing applications (including senior, veteran’s, and special needs housing); (3) Develop a streamlined process for commercial to residential conversions via the Hearing Examiner; (4) Develop guidelines to incentivize mixed-income residential housing in future and redeveloped activity centers; (5) Develop a process to identify and allow for increased density in Strategic Opportunity Sites; (6 ) Provide an increase in density in the CRA areas and along transit corridors. Prepared By: Cormac Giblin, AICP - Grants and Housing Development Manager; Community and Human Services Division ATTACHMENT(S) 1. CHP Phase 3 Presentation Agenda 092818-1420 [Linked] (PDF) 11.A Packet Pg. 45 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 763 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing 10/09/2018 COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 11.A Doc ID: 6699 Item Summary: Recommendation to direct staff to continue implementation of the Community Housing Plan (CHP) by taking necessary actions to: (1) Continue work on a Mixed Income Housing Incentive Program; (2) Provide regulatory relief to certain housing applications (including senior, veteran’s, and special needs housing); (3) Develop a streamlined process for commercial to residential conversions; (4) Develop guidelines to incentivize mixed-income residential housing in future and redeveloped activity centers; (5) Develop a process to identify and allow for increased density in Strategic Opportunity Sites; (6) Provide an increase in density in the Community Redevelopmen t Agency (CRA) areas and along transit corridors. (Cormac Giblin, Grants and Housing Development Manager; Community and Human Services Division) Meeting Date: 10/09/2018 Prepared by: Title: – Community & Human Services Name: Hilary Halford 09/12/2018 1:41 PM Submitted by: Title: – Community & Human Services Name: Cormac Giblin 09/12/2018 1:41 PM Approved By: Review: Public Services Department Kristi Sonntag Additional Reviewer Completed 09/12/2018 6:10 PM Community & Human Services Cormac Giblin Additional Reviewer Completed 09/17/2018 10:53 AM Community & Human Services Kristi Sonntag Additional Reviewer Completed 09/17/2018 12:19 PM Public Services Department Todd Henry Level 1 Division Reviewer Completed 09/18/2018 10:45 AM County Attorney's Office Jennifer Belpedio Level 2 Attorney of Record Review Completed 09/19/2018 11:59 AM Public Services Department Steve Carnell Level 2 Division Administrator Review Completed 09/25/2018 10:36 AM County Attorney's Office Emily Pepin CAO Preview Completed 09/25/2018 1:45 PM Office of Management and Budget Valerie Fleming Level 3 OMB Gatekeeper Review Completed 09/25/2018 4:41 PM County Attorney's Office Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Level 3 County Attorney's Office Review Completed 09/26/2018 10:56 AM Zoning Michael Bosi Additional Reviewer Completed 09/27/2018 8:48 AM Budget and Management Office Ed Finn Additional Reviewer Completed 10/01/2018 10:27 AM County Manager's Office Leo E. Ochs Level 4 County Manager Review Completed 10/02/2018 2:01 PM 11.A Packet Pg. 46 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 764 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing 10/09/2018 Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending 10/09/2018 9:00 AM 11.A Packet Pg. 47 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 765 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County Community Housing Plan Presentation: Housing Plan Implementationn Phase 3 10/9/18 BCC 1 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 766 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : 2 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 767 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : Housing Plan Implementation Direction 3Regulationand Governance Increase, Maintain, or Restore Supply Enhance Transportation Options Increase Wages Communication and Engagement 7 member BCC Increase Density in AHDB program Bus routes near aff. development Government wages YIMBY and Volunteer Projects Simple Majority for AH Zoning Mixed Income Hsg with flexibility options Park and Ride System Minimum wage Directory of affordable housing for developers Increase Density at Strategic Sites Rental of guest houses / ADU Bus Rapid transit or express routes Myths and Facts Brochure Increase Admin Approvals Regulatory Relief Commercial by Transp, Jobs; Incr. density Implement Pathways Plan Marketing and Communication Plan Expedite Dev. Review and Permitting Community Land Trust Promote Ride Sharing Options Hire Community Outreach Coord Reduce regs to reduce cost Use Publicly owned land Secure revenue source for transit Streamline application process Adopt SMART code LDC) Reduce or waive impact fees Directory of affordable housing for consumers Reinstate Housing Trust Fund Dev Housing Education Program Dedicated Funding Source Housing Resources Guide Adopt New Definition and Methodology Hire Housing Counselor Commercial to Residential Conversions Community Vision 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 768 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : Approvals February 2018 –Green “Foundational” 4Regulationand Governance Increase, Maintain, or Restore Supply Enhance Transportation Options Increase Wages Communication and Engagement 7 member BCC Increase Density in AHDB program Bus routes near aff. development Government wages YIMBY and Volunteer Projects Simple Majority for AH Zoning Mixed Income Hsg with flexibility options Park and Ride System Minimum wage Directory of affordable housing for developers Increase Density at Strategic Sites Rental of guest houses / ADU Bus Rapid transit or express routes Myths and Facts Brochure Increase Admin Approvals Regulatory Relief Commercial by Transp, Jobs; Incr. density Implement Pathways Plan Marketing and Communication Plan Expedite Dev. Review and Permitting Community Land Trust Promote Ride Sharing Options Hire Community Outreach Coord Reduce regs to reduce cost Use Publicly owned land Secure revenue source for transit Streamline application process Adopt SMART code LDC) Reduce or waive impact fees Directory of affordable housing for consumers Reinstate Housing Trust Fund Dev Housing Education Program Dedicated Funding Source Housing Resources Guide Adopt New Definition and Methodology Hire Housing Counselor Commercial to Residential Conversions Community Vision 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 769 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : Approvals May 2018 –Green “Enhancements” 5Regulationand Governance Increase, Maintain, or Restore Supply Enhance Transportation Options Increase Wages Communication and Engagement 7 member BCC Increase Density in AHDB program Bus routes near aff. development Government wages YIMBY and Volunteer Projects Simple Majority for AH Zoning Mixed Income Hsg with flexibility options Park and Ride System Minimum wage Directory of affordable housing for developers Increase Density at Strategic Sites Rental of guest houses / ADU Bus Rapid transit or express routes Myths and Facts Brochure Increase Admin Approvals Regulatory Relief Commercial by Transp, Jobs; Incr. density Implement Pathways Plan Marketing and Communication Plan Expedite Dev. Review and Permitting Community Land Trust Promote Ride Sharing Options Hire Community Outreach Coord Reduce regs to reduce cost Use Publicly owned land Secure revenue source for transit Streamline application process Adopt SMART code LDC) Reduce or waive impact fees Directory of affordable housing for consumers Reinstate Housing Trust Fund Dev Housing Education Program Dedicated Funding Source Housing Resources Guide Adopt New Definition and Methodology Hire Housing Counselor Commercial to Residential Conversions Community Vision 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 770 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : Approvals Through May 2018 -Green 6Regulationand Governance Increase, Maintain, or Restore Supply Enhance Transportation Options Increase Wages Communication and Engagement 7 member BCC Increase Density in AHDB program Bus routes near aff. development Government wages YIMBY and Volunteer Projects Simple Majority for AH Zoning Mixed Income Hsg with flexibility options Park and Ride System Minimum wage Directory of affordable housing for developers Increase Density at Strategic Sites Rental of guest houses / ADU Bus Rapid transit or express routes Myths and Facts Brochure Increase Admin Approvals Regulatory Relief Commercial by Transp, Jobs; Incr. density Implement Pathways Plan Marketing and Communication Plan Expedite Dev. Review and Permitting Community Land Trust Promote Ride Sharing Options Hire Community Outreach Coord Reduce regs to reduce cost Use Publicly owned land Secure revenue source for transit Streamline application process Adopt SMART code LDC) Reduce or waive impact fees Directory of affordable housing for consumers Reinstate Housing Trust Fund Dev Housing Education Program Dedicated Funding Source Housing Resources Guide Adopt New Definition and Methodology Hire Housing Counselor Commercial to Residential Conversions Community Vision 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 771 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : Response Model: Close the Gap Impact of Decisions Thus Far 7 Reduces units produced to 1215 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 772 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : Consideration Today –Yellow “Transformational” 8Regulationand Governance Increase, Maintain, or Restore Supply Enhance Transportation Options Increase Wages Communication and Engagement 7 member BCC Increase Density in AHDB program Government wages YIMBY and Volunteer Projects Simple Majority for AH Zoning Mixed Income Hsg with flexibility options Minimum wage Directory of affordable housing for developers Increase Density at Strategic Sites Rental of guest houses / ADU Myths and Facts Brochure Increase Admin Approvals Regulatory Relief Commercial by Transp, Jobs; Incr. density Marketing and Communication Plan Expedite Dev. Review and Permitting Community Land Trust Hire Community Outreach Coord Reduce regs to reduce cost Use Publicly owned land Streamline application process Adopt SMART code LDC) Reduce or waive impact fees Directory of affordable housing for consumers Reinstate Housing Trust Fund Dev Housing Education Program Dedicated Funding Source Housing Resources Guide Adopt New Definition and Methodology Hire Housing Counselor Commercial to Residential Conversions Community Vision 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 773 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : Consideration Future –Blue “Transportation” 9Regulationand Governance Increase, Maintain, or Restore Supply Enhance Transportation Options Increase Wages Communication and Engagement 7 member BCC Increase Density in AHDB program Bus routes near aff. development Government wages YIMBY and Volunteer Projects Simple Majority for AH Zoning Mixed Income Hsg with flexibility options Park and Ride System Minimum wage Directory of affordable housing for developers Increase Density at Strategic Sites Rental of guest houses / ADU Bus Rapid transit or express routes Myths and Facts Brochure Increase Admin Approvals Regulatory Relief Commercial by Transp, Jobs; Incr. density Implement Pathways Plan Marketing and Communication Plan Expedite Dev. Review and Permitting Community Land Trust Promote Ride Sharing Options Hire Community Outreach Coord Reduce regs to reduce cost Use Publicly owned land Secure revenue source for transit Streamline application process Adopt SMART code LDC) Reduce or waive impact fees Directory of affordable housing for consumers Reinstate Housing Trust Fund Dev Housing Education Program Dedicated Funding Source Housing Resources Guide Adopt New Definition and Methodology Hire Housing Counselor Commercial to Residential Conversions Community Vision 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 774 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : Housing Plan Implementation Items for today’s consideration Direct staff to continue work on a Mixed Income Housing Incentive Program Provide regulatory relief to certain housing applications including senior housing) Develop a streamlined process for commercial to residential conversions Develop guidelines to incentivize mixed income residential housing in future and redeveloped activity centers Develop a process identify and allow for increased density in Strategic Opportunity Sites (over 16 units/acre) Provide an increase in density in the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) areas and along transit corridors 10 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 775 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : Response Model: Close the Gap At stake today 11 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 776 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : 1 Mixed Income Incentive Program MARKET BASED SOLUTION 12 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 777 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : 1-Mixed Income Housing Incentive Program Purpose -To provide market incentives for the inclusion of housing that is affordable in new developments 13 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 778 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : We… Understand this is not necessarily popular with all developers and regulators Recognize this as a solid, and increasingly utilized mechanism to develop new housing stock in a growing area in proportion to the influx of new residents Believe that a program can be developed that provides market incentives that has the potential to be accepted by all involved Ask for your consideration in hearing where we are going,and seek approval to keep working on this and bring back to you specific regulatory changes to create/enable such a program 14 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 779 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : National Interest is Surging, and… Complicated and Innovative Complicated because it aspires to harness the ever-changing dynamics of market rate real estate development to achieve fixed policy goals Innovative because it aims to balance often opposing points of view in communities regarding the roles and responsibilities of the private sector to help meet a public need within a free-market economic system 15 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 780 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : National Interest is Surging, and… Come together around the extent to which the policies are mandatory, voluntary, or somewhere in between (i.e. only applied in certain circumstances) Where you land is largely determined by the development incentives that attempt to mitigate or offset the economic impacts of the zoning Good news is Collier County has at its disposal a number of tools to optimize developer participation and spur the desired development of new affordable housing units 16 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 781 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : Mixed Income Housing Incentive Benefits County provides substantial incentives to produce a “Market-Based Solution” MARKET chooses how to meet goal with multiple options offered to participants Increased Density / market rate units County can provide qualified buyers with additional subsidies Fast Track all approvals –saves $ and time Available for Impact Fee Deferrals Maybe more A “Win/Win” proposition Provides “Revenue Positive” scenario for Developer Developer saves time Developer and County meet market need for housing units For Rental and For Sale Incentivizes Smart Planning/Design Balanced and measured approach Produces homes that are affordable in perpetuity Keeps pace with growth 17 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 782 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : Collier’s Comprehensive Plan Directs that a Mixed Income Housing Program be Explored 18 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 783 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : A Mixed Income Housing Requirement is Already in our Code for Rural Villages 19 2-3 units/acre of which 0.2 required to be Affordable = 7%-10% Required 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 784 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : Recommendation Direct staff to work with the development community, bankers and other interested parties to develop GMP and LDC amendments that will create a market based mixed income housing program 20 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 785 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : 2 Provide Regulatory Relief to Certain Housing Applications THAT ADDRESS HOUSING AFFORDABILITY AND TO INCREASE CERTAINTY 21 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 786 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : 2-Provide Regulatory Relief to Certain Housing Applications that Address Housing Affordability Purpose -Incentivize the development of Housing that Is affordable by increasing certainty. 22 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 787 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : 2-Provide Regulatory Relief to Certain Housing Applications that Address Housing Affordability Creating development incentives for developments that voluntarily include housing that is affordable will encourage the development for more affordable units. Possible examples of such incentives could include: Allow an increased Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for Assisted Living Facilities that increase the number of Medicare (affordable) beds Allow Cluster Housing for developments including Housing that is Affordable without a Conditional Use Provide Relief from some site design standards for developments including Housing that is Affordable (i.e.-Road/sidewalk widths, generators, design criteria, reduced parking standards, etc.) Staff will work with the Development Services Advisory Committee to explore and vet possible changes to the LDC that would provide regulatory relief and bring suggested amendments back the Board for approval. 23 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 788 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : 2-Provide Regulatory Relief to Certain Housing Applications that Address Housing Affordability Benefits If certain reliefs are spelled out, developers increase certainty The relief incentives are to encourage construction of more housing that is affordable Any relief would need to maintain the health, safety, and welfare Public benefit because this is a priority of the BCC to make sure there is housing sufficient to meet the needs of the community 24 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 789 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : Recommendation Direct staff to review regulations and develop Land Development Code amendments that will provide Development Relief to certain Residential land use Applications that voluntarily provide a portion of their units as Housing that is Affordable 25 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 790 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : 3 Allow for Commercial to Residential Conversions via Hearing Examiner 26 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 791 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : 3-Allow for Commercial to Residential Conversions via Hearing Examiner Purpose-Increase certainty in the development process for the conversion of existing Commercially Zoned property to Residential including housing that is affordable. 27 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 792 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : 3-Allow for Commercial to Residential Conversions via Hearing Examiner Commercial Zoning is widely considered to be one of the most intensive land uses, with Residential likewise being considered one of the least intensive (noise, lighting, traffic generation, etc.). This recommendation would seek to increase certainty and decrease time in the approval process for developments seeking to down-zone from exiting Commercial uses to Residential, in exchange for those developments providing a portion of their residential units as housing that is affordable. 28 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 793 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : 3-Allow for Commercial to Residential Conversions via Hearing Examiner Historically the vast majority of these requests have been approved by the BCC This process would be limited to properties located in Activity Centers or that are identified as “Commercial/Consistent by Plan” 29 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 794 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : 3-Allow for Commercial to Residential Conversions via Hearing Examiner Clear guidelines will be created to outline where and under what circumstances this will be allowed Offers certainty while maintaining transparency Staff will still do a thorough review and hold each application to the requirements in the code The Hearing Examiner will provide oversight to ensure guidelines are followed and neighborhood compatibility is maintained 30 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 795 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : 3-Allow for Commercial to Residential Conversions via Hearing Examiner Benefits Increases certainty Promotes inclusion of Housing that is Affordable Board sets clear criteria for approval and staff carries it out via the Hearing Examiner 31 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 796 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : Recommendation Direct staff to develop Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code amendments that will increase certainty and in the Commercial to Residential conversion process for developments that voluntarily provide a portion of their units as Housing that is Affordable 32 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 797 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : 4 Develop guidelines to incentivize mixed income residential housing IN FUTURE AND REDEVELOPED ACTIVITY CENTERS 33 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 798 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : 4-Develop guidelines to incentivize mixed income residential housing in future and redeveloped activity centers Purpose-To encourage that Activity Centers be built-out or re- developed as true mixed-use areas offering a broad range of residential products types and price ranges. 34 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 799 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : 35 Activity Centers are located throughout the Urban Area of the County in locations where development is to be encouraged 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 800 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : 4-Develop guidelines to incentivize mixed income residential housing in future and redeveloped activity centers Since there is no requirement that Activity Centers include residential units, many activity Centers have been developed as strip retail centers and out-parcels without a residential component. Offering a mix of residential options within an Activity Center takes advantage of existing infrastructure, locating residential units near to employment centers and relieves traffic by offering internal capture and shorter trip lengths. Possible incentives include: Reduced Impact Fees, Greater Densities, Streamlined Approval Process, Concurrency waivers, lower preserve requirements, etc… Existing Activity Center model is 30 years old, time for study and re- evaluation 36 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 801 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : What Moderate Density Looks Like 37 Mercato Mixed Use –North Naples 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 802 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : What Moderate Density Looks Like 38 10 units to the acre –Botanical Place (Bayshore Road) 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 803 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : What Density Looks Like 39 Proposed Davis Triangle Development 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 804 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : 4-Develop guidelines to incentivize mixed income residential housing in future and redeveloped activity centers Benefits Encourages residential uses near areas with existing infrastructure Allows for Housing that is Affordable to be developed throughout the north/south corridors of the county 40 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 805 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : Recommendation Direct staff to Re-Evaluate Activity Center Zoning to modernize and encourage the inclusion of residential units for developments that voluntarily provide a portion of their units as Housing that is Affordable 41 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 806 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : 5 Develop a process to designate certain Strategic Opportunity Sites and allow for increased density GREATER THAN 16U/A) 42 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 807 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : 5-Develop a process to designate certain Strategic Opportunity Sites and allow for increased density greater than 16u/a) Purpose-To designate certain strategic areas where the maximum residential density may exceed 16u/a. 43 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 808 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : Vision of Strategic Opportunity Sites 44 2017 ULI Panel Report BCC would designate sites in advance 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 809 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : 5-Develop a process to designate certain Strategic Opportunity Sites and allow for increased density greater than 16u/a) Considerations- A main recommendation of the 2017 ULI Study is that Collier County should allow for greater residential densities (more than 16u/a) in order to mitigate high land and development costs. Strategic Opportunity Site’s would be designated by the BCC as areas where higher densities are encouraged (similar to the Activity Center concept), but at densities in the 20-25u/a range. Examples of a Strategic Opportunity Site may be a new corporate headquarters campus or, a regional commercial center, or an institution of higher learning. Strategic Opportunity Sites would be designated in the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map in order to reduce any negative NIMBY opposition to higher density development in the future. 45 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 810 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : What High Density Looks Like 46 30 units to the acre –Naples Square (Goodlette Rd and US41) 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 811 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : 5-Develop a process to designate certain Strategic Opportunity Sites and allow for increased density greater than 16u/a) Benefits Increases certainty Reduces Costs Creates jobs/housing balance Reduces infrastructure needs elsewhere Fuels Economic Development 47 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 812 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : Recommendation Direct staff to develop Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code amendments that will create a process for the creation and designation of Strategic Opportunity Sites allowing for increased density (above 16u/a) for developments that voluntarily provide a portion of their units as Housing that is Affordable 48 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 813 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : 6 Provide an increase in density in the Community Redevelopment Agency CRA) areas AND ALONG TRANSIT CORRIDORS 49 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 814 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : 6-Provide an increase in density in the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) areas and along transit corridors Purpose-To incentivize development in CRA Areas and along major transit corridors where infrastructure already exists 50 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 815 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : 6-Provide an increase in density in the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) areas and along transit corridors Considerations- Locating housing that is affordable on major transit corridors and in CRA areas is a recommendation of the 2017 ULI Study. Allowing housing near transit reduces trip lengths and traffic from employees commuting from further away. CRAs typically need additional incentives to increase their property values and encourage new development 51 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 816 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : What Medium Density Looks Like 52 6.85 units to the acre –Bristol Pines (Collier Blvd) 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 817 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : 6-Provide an increase in density in the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) areas and along transit corridors Benefits Increases certainty Incentivizes difficult to develop areas Locates Housing that is Affordable on existing infrastructure 53 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 818 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : 6-Provide an increase in density in the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) areas and along transit corridors Direct staff to work with the CRA Advisory Boards to develop Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code amendments that will allow increased density and other incentives in CRAs and allonge transit corridors for developments that voluntarily provide a portion of their units as Housing that is Affordable 54 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 819 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : Housing Plan Implementation Items Summary of Today’s Items 10-9-18 1.Direct staff to continue work on a Mixed Income Housing Incentive Program 2.Provide regulatory relief to certain housing applications (including senior housing) 3.Develop a streamlined process for commercial to residential conversions 4.Develop guidelines to incentivize mixed income residential housing in future and redeveloped activity centers 5.Develop a process to allow for increased density in Strategic Opportunity Sites (over 16 units/acre) 6.Provide an increase in density in the Community Redevelopment Agency CRA) areas and along transit corridors 55 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 820 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : Questions 56 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 821 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : Collier Housing Plan 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 822 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/16/17 - Page 1 FINAL Collier County Community Housing Plan October 24, 2017 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 823 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/16/17 - Page 2 Collier County Community Housing Plan October 24, 2017 Table of Contents • Executive Summary • Plan Development & Community Participation Page 5 • Current Housing Conditions Page 8 • ULI Findings Page 8 • Cost Burden Page 8 • Jobs-Housing Imbalance Page 9 • Market Trends Page 12 • ULI Recommendations Page 14 • Vision for the Future Page 15 • Shared Language/Definitions Page 15 • Housing Demand Model (HDM) Page 18 • Housing Recommendations –Stakeholders Group Page 20 • Density and Certainty Page 21 • Housing Trust Fund and Stable Funding Sources Page 28 • Community Land Trust & Public Lands Page 41 • Transportation Enhancements Page 45 • Communication & Outreach Page 47 • Housing Response Model: Closing the Gap and Taking Action Page 51 • Implementation Plan/ Schedule Page 52 • Appendices 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 824 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/16/17 - Page 3 Executive Summary Collier County has a statutory obligation to provide for housing its current and anticipated population, including those most vulnerable. Affordable housing is part of a community’s infrastructure and therefore it impacts the entire community. First responders, health care professionals, teachers and others have been priced out of the housing market and have to commute long distances. A vibrant and sustainable community needs to accommodate its workforce so that those people who educate our children and save our lives can live near where they work, if they choose. In response to community concerns about the unmet needs, development of the Collier County Community Housing Plan was commissioned by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners in March 2016. An initial and on-going struggle in this endeavor has been achieving a common understanding of the definition of affordable housing, as well as how housing is tracked and reported in order to inform decision making. This plan recommends a new and simple definition to be in line with federal and state definitions, and focuses on the household income in determining whether or not housing is affordable. Under the definition, if a household spends less than 30% of their gross income on housing, then housing is affordable. The definition is inclusive of all populations including seniors and persons with special needs. Also, a decision is required as to the top income level to be considered affordable housing, and it is recommended that level be 140% of the Area Median Income, or $90,432 for a 3-person household in 2017. In early 2017, the Urban Land Institute performed a panel review of the housing situation in Collier County. Among their conclusions is that Collier needed to reframe its view of housing to better meet the needs of the 40% of the population (58,685 households) already living here that are spending more than what is affordable on housing. This large segment of Collier County’s population is living here un-affordably. With a common definition, an income cap, a focus on better meeting the needs of the cost burdened who live here, and an analysis of current market availability, a needs and response model has been developed. The needs model indicates a need for 1,665 additional units to be developed at various income levels in the next year. These units would house new entrants to the county, and also achieve a new “level of service standard” to reduce the existing cost burdened population by 1% to 3% of the population. “Housing is not a social issue, it is an economic issue.” -ULI Panel 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 825 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/16/17 - Page 4 The response model implements the six core strategy recommendations from the ULI Panel which are: Review regulation and governance to simplify, expedite and reduce cost of development; increase supply of rental and for-sale product for the determined income categories; maintain or restore existing supply, enhance transportation options; and increase communication and engagement concerning housing that is affordable. The key elements of the recommendations include increasing certainty in the process, reducing specified development costs and review times, enhancing existing incentives such as the affordable housing density bonus program and the activity center bonuses, implementing a mixed income ordinance with enhanced density and flexible in-lieu of options, adopting a non-residential linkage fee to garner sustainable revenue for a housing trust fund, creation of a community land trust and process for land donations, and significant improvements with respect to impact fee relief. The plan will address housing for seniors and those with special needs, as well as disaster recovery housing. All of these strategies and incentives are intended to function as a complete package in order to achieve their desire results. The response model developed indicates that the incentives and other programs can help Collier meet its objectives, but may still fall short. Extensive research was conducted, and the exhibits and support papers are available for detailed review on the background of plan elements. The plan is intended as a short and long range incentive program to address current and future housing needs, and will be evaluated periodically to determine the extent to which headway is being made. The Stakeholder Committee recommends this plan to the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, and the Affordable Housing Committee and staff recommends this plan to the Board of County Commissioners. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 826 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/16/17 - Page 5 Plan Development & Community Participation: In March 2016, the Board of County Commissioners directed the development of a cohesive, inclusive plan to meet the housing affordability needs of the entire County. The creation of a Community Housing Plan (CHP) includes addressing the current and future housing affordability needs of Collier County as required by Florida State Statute 163.3177(6)(f)a, with input from a diverse group of community stakeholders. The goal was to help create and guide the development of a long term, comprehensive plan within eighteen (18) months, or by September 2017. The Board of County Commissioners approved the creation and appointment of members to a Community Housing Stakeholders Group on June 14, 2016. More than 35 Stakeholders, representing a broad coalition of members from major employers, developers and real estate professionals, to non- profits, advocacy groups, and others have meet regularly since the first meeting on July 25, 2016. They have spent countless hours researching and discussing options that could be utilized in Collier County to encourage the development of housing that is affordable to a wide range of incomes and households. The Housing Stakeholder Committee has worked to build public and private partner solutions to the housing affordability crisis. There has been extensive research and analysis of existing data and proposed methods and tools to address this critical community issue to encourage the development of a wider variety of housing opportunities affordable to a broad and diverse spectrum of Collier County residents. The Stakeholders committee and the County’s Affordable Housing Advisory Committee (AHAC) have worked closely together and held more than 20 regularly scheduled meetings, 30 subcommittee meetings, and 5 public hearings since July 2016. The Community Housing Stakeholders Group has presented its recommendations to AHAC, DSAC, and other public and private committees to ensure that multiple voices are included in this community-wide process. Creating more housing that is affordable to a broad cross section of the community will help make Collier County a more sustainable, diverse, vibrant, and livable community in the coming years. FL Statues Chapter 163.3177 (6)(f) a.- Every local jurisdiction must plan for the provision of housing for all current and anticipated future residents of the jurisdiction. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 827 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/16/17 - Page 6 Collier County Housing Stakeholder Members & Contributors: Steve Sanderson, President and CEO, United Way of Collier County Michael Dalby, President and CEO, Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce Danny Gonzalez, President, Immokalee Chamber of Commerce Renee Thigpen, HR Director, Naples Community Hospital Allen Weiss, President and CEO, Naples Community Hospital Ian Dean, HR Director, Collier County School District Kamela Patton, Superintendent, Collier County School District Leo Ochs, Jr., County Manager, Collier County Government – as employer Tim Durham, Manager Corporate Business Operations, Collier County Gov’t Mike Boose, HR Director, Arthrex Reinhold Schmieding, Founder and President, Arthrex Darlyn Estes, HR Director, Collier County Sheriff’s Office Clark Hill, General Manager, Naples Hilton Hotel, Hotels/Restaurants Nick Kouloheras, President, Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Hsg Dev Steve Kirk, President, Big Cypress Housing, Nonprofit housing developer Russell Budd, CEO, PBS Construction, For profit housing developers Bill Bullock, Senior Vice President, Minto Communities Developer Kathy Curatolo, Exec Vice President, Collier Building Industry Association Bill Spinelli, Chairman, Titan Custom Homes/CBIA - Construction Industry Jamie French, Deputy Dept Head, Growth Management Dept, Collier County Robin Singer, Planning Director, City of Naples Tami Scott, Zoning Administrator, City of Marco Island Christine Welton, Exec Director, Hunger and Homeless Coalition of CC Michael Puchalla, Executive Director, HELP, Nonprofit Housing Counseling/Ed Oscar Hentschel, Executive Director, Collier County Housing Authority Angela Edison, Housing Director, Collier Cnty Housing Auth/SWFL Apt Assoc Barbara Melvin, Community Relations Officer, First Florida Integrity Bank Mary Waller, Director, Naples Area Board of Realtors (NABOR) Shirley English, CEO, Marco Island Area Association of Realtors Nancy Pelotte-Cook – Marketing Director, Lely Palm Retirement Community Dr. Jaclynn Faffer, Pres & CEO, Jewish Family & Community Services of SWFL Marianne Lorini, President and CEO of the Area Agency On Aging of SWFL Lydia Galton (Retired/Active Community Volunteer) Community At Large Alan Horton (Retired Naples Daily News) Community At Large Ed Morton (Retired NCH) Community At Large Mark Teaters, Golden Gate Estates Association Affordable Housing Advisory Committee (AHAC) Steve Hruby, Chairman Taylor McLaughlin John Cowan Denise Murphy Mary Waller Scott Kish Joseph Schmitt Litha Berger Kristi Bartlett Dr. Carlos Portu Christina Apostolidis Other Contributors Sally Luken, Luken Solutions; Alan Leaffer, Citizen-at-Large; Gerald Godshaw, Collier Citizens Council; Mark Hahn, Home Care; Sheryl Soukup, Soukup Strategic Solutions; Leslie Reyes, Citizen-at-Large; Anthony Fortino, Fortino Construction; George Danz, Riviera Golf Est; Mary George, Community Foundation of Collier County 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 828 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/16/17 - Page 7 “From the panel’s perspective, the real need in Collier County is for action and implementation. This implementation will require political will and leadership. In addition, the community at large will need to prepare for and adapt to the growth that is certain to occur in the county.” – ULI Panel Report pg 7 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 829 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/16/17 - Page 8 Current Housing Conditions: Urban Land Institute (ULI) Findings In the fall of 2016, the Urban Land Institute (ULI) was hired to help Collier County develop a community-wide approach to address the local housing affordability challenges. The Board of County Commissioners had previously held affordable housing workshops in March 2015 and 2016 to address the housing affordability crisis which has continued to grow since the end of the Great Recession (2007-2011). Members of the ULI team spent a week in Collier County touring the community, meeting with more than 100 stakeholder representatives, processing data/information and holding a preliminary workshop with elected officials to offer recommendations and suggestions. The ULI Panel report titled, Collier County Florida January 29-February 3, 2017, resulted in a call to action with 35 specific recommendations and some startling statistics. In the opening of the ULI Panel Report the team stated that they were “…impressed with the time, the effort, and the quality of work that has been invested in this subject by the commissioners and Collier County staff.” However, the panel also stated that “From the panel’s perspective, the real need in Collier County is for action and implementation. This implementation will require political will and leadership.”(pg 7) Reframing Housing Affordability - Cost Burdened ULI focused on those families and individuals in our community who are “cost burdened”; meaning they spend more than 30 percent of their gross income on housing costs, which includes mortgage principal and interest, property tax, HOA fees, and homeowner’s insurance payments. In conjunction with this definition are those community members who are “severely cost burdened” meaning that they spend more than 50 percent of their gross income on housing cost. This population is the most at-risk. The ULI report states that “The advantage of using the cost-burden terminology is that it does not put the focus on income alone; instead, it examines income as compared to housing cost.” (pg 11) The Shimberg Center at the University of Florida estimated that forty percent (40%) of all Collier County households (58,685 households) were cost burdened in 2015. Of these 58,685 households, 29,342 were considered Severely Cost Burdened, spending more than 50% of their monthly income on housing expenses. “There is no question that Collier County has a housing affordability problem. Part of the challenge stems from a significant lack of supply in terms of housing type and level of affordability throughout the county.” – ULI Panel Report “In 2015, 2 out of every 5 households in Collier County were cost burdened, spending more than 30% of their income on housing.” – ULI Panel Report 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 830 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/16/17 - Page 9 Figure 1. Cost Burdened Professions Growth Implications According to the ULI Report, “The county is expected to add 58,000 households over the next 23 years. If the local issue of cost burden is not addressed, then – at a minimum - 11,000 more households will experience severe cost burden (above 50 percent) than do households today.” (pg 16) Jobs-Housing Imbalance Impacts Economic Development and Quality of Life There is a Jobs-Housing imbalance in Collier County resulting in at least 17.4% of the workforce (approximately 40,000 people) commuting daily from outside of Collier County. These employees work in Collier but live in Lee, Charlotte, or other counties where they spend their wages on rent, a mortgage, purchasing groceries, gas, and other necessities. Many public- sector employees (Sheriff’s Office, County & City government, School personnel) and large segments of the private sector cannot afford to live in Collier County. Their daily commutes from neighboring counties add to the traffic congestion on the roadways and diminish quality of life and active citizen participation. The ULI report identified “one critical challenge for Collier County businesses is the ability to recruit entry-level professionals.” (pg 14.) According to the ULI, “having employees who reside outside of Collier County and who commute long distances for work means a high level of attrition for businesses. “There are multiple challenges that first responders, educators, and others with modest incomes face when wanting to live close to their jobs. For these employees, the inconvenience and cost associated with commuting results in a decrease in “take home” pay; all the while adding to an increase in traffic congestion. Providing access to housing close to jobs can reduce commuting time (increasing leisure time), reduce commuting costs (increasing take home pay), reduce traffic congestion, and reduce automobile emissions. According to a survey of Collier County BCC employees, 32% of the workforce drives more than 30 minutes each day to and from work- home with 5% of the workforce driving more than 60 minutes each day. – County survey 2016 Approximately 40,000 people commute daily from outside of Collier County. – US Census 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 831 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/16/17 - Page 10 The same holds true for those employers recruiting for hospitality and service sector employment. Resort and second-home communities require retail and service employees, but many of these employees are not able to live near their job due to a lack of housing that is affordable. Stores, hotels and restaurants cannot afford to pay high enough wages to allow their employees to live in affluent areas, and as a result, suffer from short- staffing, absenteeism and high turnover. The ULI panel report states that “Furthermore, when people who work in the county are commuting to adjoining municipalities to live, the county bears the costs of the roads without the benefit of receiving the tax revenue.” (pg 14) Figure 2. Sample Cost Burdened Employment in Collier County Source: ULI Collier Report 2017 Figure 3. 2009-2014 Employment Commuting Patterns in Collier Co. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009-2013, American Community Survey According to the ULI research, there were an extremely small number of available units on the market for households earning 80-100% of area Annual Wage Range (Entry to Median) Median Gross Rent 2015 Median Home Sales Price Homes Priced at 50% of Median Price $1,020 / Month $405,000 $200,000 Health Care Registered Nurses $47,000-$65,000 24%38%19% Medical Assistants $30,000-$35,000 41%68%34% Emergency Technicians $28,000-$36,000 42%68%34% Education Teachers $44,000-$59,000 28%50%25% Teaching Assistants $22,000-$24,000 45%101%51% Public Safety Firefighters $39,000-$57,000 29%43%21% Patrol Officers $47,000-$59,000 26%41%21% Service Workers Maids/Housekeeping $18,000-$22,000 66%109%55% Massage Therapist $26,000-$55,000 37%44%22% Concierges $25,000-$31,000 48%78%39% Entry Level/ Mid Tier Professionals Human Resources Specialists $35,000-$55,000 31%45%22% Dental Assistants $33,000-$43,000 36%57%29% Administrative Assistants $22,000-$33,000 49%73%37% Commuting to Collier County for Jobs 20,313 employees out of 138,490 total Collier County Jobs commute from another county (2009-14) 14.7% of workforce commutes from another county into Collier Commute from: Lee, Hendry, Charlotte, Broward, Miami-Dade, Sarasota, Hillsborough, Highlands, Orange & Palm Beach Counties “Furthermore, when people who work in the county are commuting to adjoining municipalities to live, the county bears the costs of the roads without the benefit of receiving the tax revenue.”- ULI Report (pg 14) 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 832 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/16/17 - Page 11 median income in February 2017. Both the rent and for sale housing prices in Collier continue to outpace neighboring counties forcing employees to commute 30 to 100 miles each way, spending their wages in adjacent counties. Collier’s housing affordability gap will continue to grow as rents and for sale housing prices continue to trend upward year over year. Figure 4. “Availability Snapshot” February 1, 2017 Units on the Market for Households who make 100% or less of Area Median Income ($68,300) Housing Units Available Single Family - For Sale 125 Condo- For Sale 250 Single Family - Rentals 0 Multi-Family Rentals 23 Source: ULI Report 2/1/2017 (MLS & Apartments.com, Zillow.com, Craigslist.com, and others) Figure 5. Collier County Fair Market Rent Increases 2016/17 Collier County Rents Efficiency 1 bdrm 2 bdrm 3 bdrm 4bdrm 2017 Fair Market Rent $801 $973 $1,195 $1,606 $1,996 % chg from prior year +11.3% +14.3% +14.7% +15.5% +15.6% Source: Collier County Apartment Survey, HUD Figure 6. Collier County Median for Sale Housing Increases 2016/17 Multi- Family Single- Family Combined March 2017 Collier Median Sale Price $275,000 $422,000 $340,000 % change from prior year +7% +5% +5% Source: NABOR April 2017 Collier’s housing affordability gap will continue to grow as rents and for sale housing prices continue to trend upward year over year. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 833 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/16/17 - Page 12 Market Trends Collier County’s historical development pattern is low density, single family homeownership. Since its initial establishment, Naples and Collier County have focused on high-end second home communities, seasonal resort tourism, and the businesses that support this economic engine. As a result of this market driven pattern, large segments of the population have been underserved and priced out of the market. The County’s housing production is not sufficiently diverse with regard to size, tenure, location, and price points, to adequately reflect the social, economic, and age related diversity of our population. The result of these trends and policies is a significant disparity between the cost of housing and the incomes of the average person and the working poor. Furthermore, the members of the workforce with low to moderate wages, and members of the community on fixed incomes, have limited housing options. All of these historical development patterns, high housing cost, and other disparities limit Collier County’s ability to attract and retain a strong workforce and to sustain and expand our economy. The challenge is to embrace pubic policies and encourage changes in development trends to ensure that Collier County has a diverse, affordable housing stock that reflects the needs of our current and future population with regard to type, tenure, cost, location, safety, and accessibility. The community must begin to think differently as we plan for a vibrant, sustainable future, addressing the needs of multiple generations of renters and homeowners who provide the needed services that enhance our community’s quality of life. According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition’s annual Out of Reach the High Cost of Housing publication, the gap between renters’ wages and the cost of rental housing continues to escalate. The rental housing market has continued to experience strong demand since the Great Recession, as homeownership rates have declined. “Household income has not kept up with the rising cost of rental housing. From the housing crisis of 2007 to 2015, the median gross rent for a rental home in the U.S. increased by 6%, after adjusting for overall inflation, while the median income for renter households rose by just 1% and median income for all households declined by 4% (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017). Demand for rental housing will likely continue to rise. Researchers at the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard predict an additional 4.7 million renter households by 2025 from household growth, even if homeownership rates stabilize.” (NLIHC Out of Reach 2017) The challenge is to embrace public policies and encourage changes in development trends to ensure that Collier County has a diverse, affordable housing stock that reflects the needs of our current and future population with regard to type, tenure, cost, location, safety, and accessibility. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 834 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/16/17 - Page 13 In addition, according to NLIHC, the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, and other agencies “Six of the seven occupations projected to add the greatest number of jobs by 2024 provide a median wage that is not sufficient to afford a modest one-bedroom rental home.” According to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, Bureau of Labor Market Statistics, in 2013, 80.5% of the jobs in Collier County paid less than 80% of the area median income. Three years later, in 2016 that increased to 87.7%. As with other resort communities across the country, there is often a lack of housing that is affordable to rent or purchase for households who provide services in tourism, hospitality and to retirees. Housing that is affordable to households working and providing services to the community needs to become a part of the community’s infrastructure. Housing affordability initiatives in other resort communities have been researched with successful programs identified as potential solutions for the Collier housing affordability challenges. A key element of such initiatives is to educate residents and “change the narrative” to present affordable housing as a necessity and a shared public responsibility/part of the community’s infrastructure. Figure 7. Wells Fargo Housing Opportunity Index (Source: Wells Fargo Housing Opportunity Index) The existing housing stock of for sale homes are at prices very high relative to wage income levels, as shown in the above graph depicting data from the Wells Fargo Housing Opportunity Index. A Housing Opportunity Index (HOI) below 50 indicates an unhealthy housing to 61.4% of the jobs in Collier County pay less than $33,250 per year. Source: Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, Bureau of Labor Market Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages Program (QCEW) in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 835 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/16/17 - Page 14 Regulation and Governance Increase, Maintain, or Restore Supply Enhance Transportation Options Increase Wages Communication and Engagement 7 member BCC Increase Density in AHDB program Bus routes near aff. development Government wages YIMBY and Volunteer Projects Simple Majority for AH Zoning Incl. Zoning with flexibility options Park and Ride System Minimum wage Directory of affordable housing for developers Increase Density at Strategic Sites Rental of guest houses / ADU Bus Rapid transit or express routes Myths and Facts Brochure Increase Admin Approvals Commercial by Transp, Jobs; Incr. density Implement Pathways Plan Marketing and Communication Plan Expedite Permitting Community Land Trust Promote Ride Sharing Options Hire Community Outreach Coord Reduce regs to reduce cost Use Publicly owned land Secure revenue source for transit Streamline application process Adopt SMART code (LDC) Reduce or waive impact fees Directory of affordable housing for consumers Reinstate Housing Trust Fund Dev Housing Education Program Dedicated Funding Source Housing Resources Guide Hire Housing Counselor Community Vision affordability relationship. This chart shows the gap between wages and for sale housing prices over the past three and a half years. ULI Recommendations The ULI Panel Report (Exhibit B) provides major recommendations organized around six core strategies with 35 specific recommendations. The six core strategies for housing affordability are: Regulation & Governance Enhance Transportation Options Increase Supply Enhance Wages Maintain or Restore Existing Supply Communication and Engagement The Board of County Commissioners provided direction to the staff and stakeholders to explore 27 of the specific recommendations in four categories as they develop the Community Housing Plan (CHP). The 27 recommendations reviewed by Stakeholders are shown below in green. Figure 8. ULI Recommendations IT IS THE OPINION OF THE PANEL that Collier County absolutely has a housing affordability problem. It is not a crisis yet, but if housing is not addressed, the panel believes that it will become a crisis. Given the growth projections for the county, the panel believes this problem will occur far sooner than expected. – ULI Report, pg. 37 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 836 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/16/17 - Page 15 Vision for the Future: All residents of Collier County have a diverse range of attainable housing options. (Housing Stakeholders Group, July 2017) Creating a Shared Language --- What is Housing Affordability? In an effort to develop a common understanding, we must have a shared language of standardized terms. Throughout the CHP the following terms will be utilized to describe the concept of “What is” and “Who needs” housing that is affordable. The goal is to move away from the term affordable housing in order to reframe the perception that housing affordability is only for very low income households, or even those with no income. Therefore, it has been determined that we will refer to our goal as meeting the housing affordability needs of the community. However, for purposes of definitions, and to utilize the standard nomenclature the term affordable housing will be used; but what is really being talked about is housing affordability. Affordable Housing - Housing is affordable to a household when a residential dwelling unit with monthly rent or monthly mortgage payment, including property taxes and insurance, is not in excess of 30 percent of that amount which represents the percentage of the median annual gross income for the household. In Collier County, affordable housing specifically includes the following income level targets for the area, and are based on income categories determined by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development: (a) "Extremely low income" means households whose incomes do not exceed 30 percent of the median income. (b) "Very low income" means households whose incomes do not exceed 50 percent of the median income (c) "Low income" means households whose incomes are more than 50 percent but do not exceed 80 percent of the median income (d) Moderate income" means households whose incomes are more than 80 percent but do not exceed 120 percent of the median income (e) “Gap income” means households whose incomes are more than 120 percent but do not exceed 140 percent of the median income Approved Affordable Housing shall mean Affordable Housing that includes a long-term affordability restriction wherein the cost of housing and income of the household are known and monitored, for a specific period of time. Vision for the Future: All residents of Collier County have a diverse range of attainable housing options. - Housing Stakeholders Group, July 2017 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 837 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/16/17 - Page 16 Community Land Trust (CLT) - a vehicle to separate land from homes for the purpose of transferring title to a home without selling the land. The land remains with a nonprofit that holds title to the land and manages the ground leases. The homes can be sold to other income qualified buyers during a 99-year ground lease. A CLT is typically managed by a non-profit that provides permanently affordable housing units by acquiring land and removing it from the price of the home. Cost Burdened – households that pay more than 30 percent of their gross income on housing costs, which includes mortgage principal, interest, property tax, and homeowner’s insurance (PITI), or rent and utilities. Category Name 1 2 3 4 5 Extremely Low 30%$14,640 $16,740 $18,840 $20,910 $22,590 Very Low 50%$24,400 $27,900 $31,400 $34,850 $37,650 Low 80%$39,040 $44,640 $50,240 $55,760 $60,240 Moderate 120%$58,560 $66,960 $75,360 $83,640 $90,360 Gap 140%$70,272 $80,352 $90,432 $100,368 $108,432 Percentage Category Income Limit by Number of Persons Category Typical purchasing power for household size (3xIncome) Name 1 2 3 4 Extremely Low 30%$43,920 $50,220 $56,520 $62,730 Very Low 50%$73,200 $83,700 $94,200 $104,550 Low 80%$117,120 $133,920 $150,720 $167,280 Moderate 120%$175,680 $200,880 $226,080 $250,920 Gap 140%$210,816 $241,056 $271,296 $301,104 Percentage Category Category Name Efficiency 1 2 3 4 Extremely Low 30%$366 $392 $471 $543 $606 Very Low 50%$610 $653 $785 $906 $1,011 Low 80%$976 $1,046 $1,256 $1,450 $1,618 Moderate 120%$1,464 $1,569 $1,884 $2,175 $2,427 Gap 140%$1,830 $1,883 $2,261 $2,610 $2,912 Rent Limit by Number of Bedrooms (incl. utilities)Percentage Category 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 838 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/16/17 - Page 17 Housing Trust Fund (HTF) – is established to collect and disburse funds for the creation of affordable housing, including purchasing land. Locally collected funds dispersed using local guidelines and requirements Linkage Fees – a fee charged to non-residential development based upon the employment demand and affordable housing need created by new or re-development. Linkage Fees collected are placed in a Housing Trust Fund (HTF). Mixed-Income Housing – includes diverse types of housing units, such as apartments, town homes, and/or single-family homes for people with a range of income levels. Mixed-income housing includes both market rate and below market rate as determined by the needs of the local community. Collier County is proposing development of mixed-income communities targeted at low, moderate, and gap incomes along with market rate housing. Seniors and Special Needs- households that include persons that are elderly, disabled, at risk of being or are homeless, and/or have extremely low incomes. These special needs populations may include more specifically defined subgroups such as youth aging out of foster care, survivors of domestic violence, persons with severe and persistent mental illness, or persons with developmental disabilities. Severely Cost Burdened – households that pay more than 50 percent of their gross income on housing cost - mortgage principal, interest, taxes and insurance (PITI), or rent and utilities. Unrestricted Market Rate Housing – means dwelling units that are unrestricted for affordability, yet are valued on the open market at a given time with a fair market value making them potentially attainable to households with yearly incomes less than 140%AMI. In this category, there is no knowledge of whether the general affordable housing definition has been met, meaning the household income of the persons in the dwelling units and their actual housing costs are unknown. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 839 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/16/17 - Page 18 Collier County Housing Demand Model---What is the Housing Need? The Board of County Commissioners adopted a Housing Demand Methodology in 2015 that identified the need for additional housing units based upon projected population growth by income categories. This 2015 demand model only addressed future housing demand. The 2017 Housing Demand Model (HDM) has been modified to add information on the current supply and current shortfall of housing, as well as the number of cost burdened households, resulting in a projected total affordable housing units needed per year by various targeted categories. With an estimated 40% of the county population being cost burdened according to the Shimberg Center at University of Florida, reducing this percentage of cost burden families by just a few percentage points would bring Collier County more in line with other communities’ cost burden percentage. Collier County is ranked 12th highest in Florida for the number of households that are cost burdened. In looking at other Florida communities, many counties have between 36%-39% of their population being housing cost burden. Collier County should consider efforts to reduce its cost burden population by at least 3-5% in the coming years to be competitive with peer counties. Figure 9. Sample Cost-Burdened Counties State Rank County Households # Cost Burdened % Cost Burdened 2 Monroe 33,658 16,635 49.4% 6 Palm Beach 574,690 256,971 44.7% 7 St. Lucie 113,981 49,982 43.9% 10 Sarasota 181,668 76,613 42.2% 12 Collier 143,771 57,601 40.1% 14 Volusia 217,830 86,902 39.9% 16 Flagler 41,710 16,562 39.7% 17 Lee 268,614 104,709 39.0% 18 Pinellas 434,206 168,988 38.9% 19 Indian River 63,373 24,403 38.5% 20 Manatee 149,999 57,122 38.1% 24 Charlotte 77,358 28,173 36.4% 37 Hendry 11,916 4,039 33.9% 61 Glades 4,595 1,234 26.9% Southwest Florida 5-county region in green; All adjacent counties lower cost burdened Similar coastal communities in orange 57,601 Households are cost burdened in Collier County – of which 29,342 are severely cost burdened (spending more than 50% of their income on housing) 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 840 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/16/17 - Page 19 Collier County individuals or families that are cost burdened (more than 30%) or severely cost burden (more than 50%) have less income to spend on other necessities including food, health care, school supplies, and transportation costs. Using the updated 2017 Housing Demand Methodology shows a need for housing that is affordable at a variety of income levels in Collier County. Figure 10. Housing Demand Model Sources/ Notes: 1. NABOR (Naples) and MIAAOR (Marco) Collier County Inventory levels collected from July 10, 2017 2. University of Florida Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing- Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse 3. To determine the current population needs and future populations needs, the FL Dept of Labor, Occupation Report from 2016 was used which includes jobs located in Collier County 4. Collier County Property Appraiser 5. Includes Manufactured Homes1. (column #11)- NABOR (Naples) and MIAAOR (Marco) Collier County Inventory levels collected from August, 2017; note NABOR does not include private sales not approved for sale on the MLS 6. 2. (column #7)- University of Florida Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing- Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse 7. (column #8)- To determine the current population needs and future populations needs, University of Florida Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing- Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse 8. (column #5)- Collier County Property Appraiser 9. Note: There are 8,514 mobile home units in Collier County, of which 2,076 are located in District 5 (which includes Immokalee). A survey of mobile home parks has determined that the majority of mobile home units in Immokalee are utilized as migrant farm-worker housing, and many other mobile homes in the urban area of the county are located in age restricted, 55 and over communities. While the number of mobile homes in Collier County is significant, in total they make up less than 4% of the County’s total housing stock and they are encumbered by other restrictions that preclude them from serving as housing options for the greater population. The Housing demand model shows a need for 1,665 units at various income levels. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 841 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/16/17 - Page 20 Housing Recommendations The Stakeholders Group—How Do We Address the Housing Need? With the release of the final ULI Advisory Services Panel Report Collier County, Florida January 29-February 3, 2017 in June 2017 (Exhibit B), the Housing Stakeholders Group, the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee (AHAC), and staff have developed a long term, comprehensive Community Housing Plan with specific recommendations to the BCC and the community to address the growing housing affordability crisis that has been impacting the community for years. The Stakeholders formed five subcommittees to begin to gather data on the issues and identify tools and methods to address the identified strategies. Stakeholder Group Subcommittees: Density and Certainty Stable Funding Sources Community Land Trust & Public Lands Transportation Enhancements Communication & Outreach The Stakeholders recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners follow on the next sections. The 2017 Collier County Housing Demand Model shows a need for 1,665 new units that are affordable each year. Stakeholder Focus Density and Certainty Stable Funding Sources Community Land Trust & Public Lands Transportation Enhancements Communication & Outreach Stakeholder Focus Density and Certainty Stable Funding Sources Community Land Trust & Public Lands Transportation Enhancements Communication & Outreach 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 842 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/16/17 - Page 21 Density and Certainty This subcommittee focused on bringing certainty to the development process and increasing density. This subcommittee’s recommendations include: 1. Identify “Strategic Opportunity Sites” for Higher Densities A. Require Activity Centers to include residential development- When originally enacted in Collier County’s Code, Activity Centers were designed to include a mix of uses including residential development at higher densities as well as intense commercial and office uses. This would have several benefits including providing housing opportunities in/near commercial job centers and developing residential properties at higher densities providing diversity in the residential development pattern of Collier County. These residential units would not be restricted or monitored for affordability, but rather would serve to provide a diverse supply of housing types and options. The requirement that activity centers include residential uses in their development was removed from Collier’s Code decades ago. As a result, all activities center development to date has been focused exclusively on commercial centers; residential development around activity centers has maintained Collier County’s low density/gated community characteristics and the workforce needed for those job centers must commute from further away causing congestion on our roadway system. It is recommended that Collier County again require a residential component be included in the development or re-development of any exiting or newly created activity centers. B. Allow Higher Densities in Activity Centers & Strategic Opportunity Sites above the current limits (i.e. 20-25 units/acre)- According to the ULI Report, “density is key” to providing housing that is affordable. The ULI suggested densities in the 30-35 units per acre range. Collier County’s historic development pattern has led to extremely low density development that sprawls outward from the coast and from commercial centers. Although extremely rarely used or approved, if ever, density in Collier County is capped in the Comprehensive Plan to 16 units to the acre maximum. Density above this maximum can create opportunities for housing that is affordable to be developed. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 843 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/16/17 - Page 22 It is recommended that Collier County initiate a process to amend its comprehensive plan to allow for the maximum residential density to be increased to 20-25 units per acre at certain Strategic Opportunity Sites. Strategic Opportunity Sites will be identified by the Board based upon recommendations from Growth Management through the land use review process. These sites may build on the existing activity centers concept and be expanded to include new corporate headquarter sites or industrial areas, or major transportation corridors, in the urban area, eastern Collier, Immokalee and other appropriate locations. Housing that is affordable in Strategic opportunity sites could be designated for Essential Services Personnel (teachers, first responders, health care professionals, etc.). 2. Modify the existing Affordable Housing Density Bonus (AHDB) program to allow higher densities from 8 to 12 units per acre (See attached proposed amendment to the AHDB in the Appendix Exhibit C & C.1) The existing Affordable Housing Density Bonus program allows for a density bonus of up to 8 additional units per acre on top of a site’s base density. These bonuses, which have a land use restriction of 15 years, are available only in the County’s Urban Area, where development is encouraged. In Collier County, the base density in the urban area is 4 units per acre, with several large areas further limited to only 3 units per acre as a base density. Applying the maximum Affordable Housing Density Bonus program to these sites allows the density on those sites to only be increased to 11 or 12 units per acre. This is below the County’s maximum allowed density cap of 16 units per acre. It is recommended that the existing Affordable Housing Density Bonus Program be amended to allow up to a 12 unit per acre bonus, thus allowing development of housing that is affordable to be built up to the county’s maximum allowable density of up to 16 units per acre. It is also recommended to extend the AHDB on rental communities to 30 years. 3. Implement Mixed Income Housing Ordinance with local flexibility options (See attached draft ordinance in the Appendix Exhibit D & D.1) Policy 1.9 of the Housing Element of the Collier County Comprehensive Plan specifically tasks the County, to explore the development of a fair share affordable housing ordinance that shall require commercial and residential developments to address the lack of affordable housing. Urban Area- 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 844 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/16/17 - Page 23 To address this task and the housing affordability issue in Collier County, it is recommended that the county adopt and implement a locally designed and controlled Mixed Income Housing Ordinance. The proposed Mixed Income Housing Ordinance will require new residential development seeking approval by the Board of County Commissioners to address housing affordability. Developers have several options as to how to meet this requirement including 1) accepting a 30% density bonus and including the mixed income units onsite, 2) providing the mixed income units off site, 3) partnering with another entity to provide the mixed income units, 4) paying a fee in-lieu of providing the mixed income units, or 5) approval by the Board of County Commissioners of some other option to comply with the mixed income housing ordinance with a commensurate result. The proposed Mixed Income Housing Ordinance allows for a 30% density bonus (including bonus/additional market rate units) in exchange for providing 15% of the residential units as Mixed Income Housing. The mixed income units will be 5% at Low Income, 5% Moderate Income, and 5% Gap income. Ten percent of those mixed income units will be made available to seniors and special needs households. It is anticipated that this ordinance will create approximately 180 new units that are affordable each year at varying income level targets (including units for seniors and those with special needs). These units will be deed restricted and monitored to remain affordable for a specific period of time. Implementation of a mixed income housing ordinance would help ensure equitable distribution of housing that is affordable throughout all areas of the county. As stated, developers may choose to pay fees in lieu of developing the required affordable housing on site. In- lieu fees that are permitted within the mixed income housing ordinance are not intended to provide a revenue source for affordable housing. The fee in lieu is established at $127,000 per unit and calculated as the difference between the combined single-family and multi-family median sales price ($327,000- NABOR July 2017, Exhibit D.1) and that amount that is affordable to a household at the Moderate income level ($200,000). Funds which may be collected if a developer chooses this option would be deposited into the local affordable housing trust fund. This supports the primary goal and objective of the Housing Element, which is to provide new affordable housing units in order to meet the current and future housing needs of residents with very-low, low, moderate and gap incomes, including seniors and households with special needs such as rural and farmworker housing in rural Collier County. An exception to the Mixed Income Housing Ordinance is Towns and Villages developing under the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) overlay. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 845 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/16/17 - Page 24 Communities in the RLSA will have their own housing affordability requirements. Figure 11. PUD Residential Approvals 2007-2017 4. Establish or Increase Administrative Approvals A. Allow commercial conversion near targeted transportation and job centers at high density; using SDP approval only- Collier County currently allows the conversion of commercial sites to residential through a re-zoning process. Commercial zoning may be converted to residential at 16 units per acre. This process is rarely used due to the requirement that the site go through a full re-zoning process including public hearings. Downzoning a site from commercial zoning reduces the intensity of uses allowed on the site. As such the need for public vetting and approvals of such actions should be greatly mitigated. It is recommended that for developments proposing to include housing that is affordable through a commercial to residential conversion be approved administratively through the SDP process. B. Allow affordable housing densities by right- Currently the Affordable Housing Density Bonus Program is allowed to be applied as matter of right in the Immokalee area. “Density is Key” -ULI Panel PUD UNIT APPROVALS Example Mixed Income Housing Requirements/Units YEAR PUD Units Approved 5%10%15%20% 2007 3,271 164 327 491 654 2008 1,515 76 152 227 303 2009 548 27 55 82 110 2010 0 0 0 0 0 2011 2,080 104 208 312 416 2012 523 26 52 78 105 2013 145 7 15 22 29 2014 3,366 168 337 505 673 2015 325 16 33 49 65 2016 267 13 27 40 53 2017 (1/2 yr)610 31 61 92 122 2017 (Projected)1,220 61 122 183 244 2007-2017 (Projected) Total 13,260 663 1,326 1,989 2,652 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 846 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/16/17 - Page 25 It is recommended that this provision be expanded to allow Affordable Housing Density Bonuses up to 4 units to the acre to be approved administratively throughout the urban area. C. In Senior Living Facilities require any request above a .45 FAR to include 20% of the beds as affordable/Medicare. D. Micro Housing – Create local development codes to suit small single family units. Study full impact and effects of allowing smaller units, including but not limited to LDC and GMP impacts, Impact Fee impacts, and future land use element impacts. 5. Expedite the Permitting and Approval Process; including zoning, LDC and GMP changes A. The current Expedited Permitting Process for Affordable Housing (Fast-Track) prescribes a certain number of review days depending on the action required. Rejections are then sent back to the applicant and resubmitted to be reviewed and either rejected again or approved. This cycle can repeat itself 5 or 6 or more times. Each time adding months to the project approval. Create a concurrent and interactive review to clear discrepancies in one meeting. It is recommended that the current Expedited Permitting Process be amended to include a concurrent and interactive review to clear discrepancies in one or two meetings between staff and applicants. 6. Allow cost-saving infrastructure changes - Case Study Several regulatory changes were considered and evaluated as to the costs they add to a development, their need, and the potential cost savings if the regulations were eliminated. A Case Study of a recent single family development applied some of these changes in an attempt to find the “real world” value of making them. The chart below shows a sampling of what the elimination or amendment of some of these regulations can do to the construction cost of EACH home. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 847 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/16/17 - Page 26 Figure 12. Cost saving regulatory relief Proposed Changes Cost Savings per Unit Limit application to 1 round of reviews at Planning level $1,091 Limit application to 2 rounds of review by Engineering $545 Allow for administrative approval for projects meeting established thresholds $909 Allow for additional density for affordable projects by right, i.e. Market rate projects in urban area = 4 units/acre, mixed income = 7/units/acre $1,818 Require sidewalks on only one side of the street $223 Waive requirement for generator at lift station $2,364 Total Savings per Unit $6,950 By adopting some of these regulatory reliefs the cost of each home could be reduced by almost $7000. According to the National Home Builder’s Association’s “Priced Out” report in 2016, every $1000 added or subtracted to the price of a home in Collier County either allows 189 additional households to afford to purchase a median priced home, or puts that home out of their reach. Applying that model to the $7000 in construction cost savings has the potential to make approximately 1,325 home in Collier County affordable to buyers. It is recommended that Collier County continue to explore and refine the list of regulatory relief items and present a full list to the Board for approval through the applicable LDC or GMP amendment cycles. 7. Amend the LDC to Adopt Smart Code A smart code is a unified land development ordinance template for planning and urban design. A form-based unified land development ordinance designed to create walkable neighborhoods across the full spectrum of development, from the most rural to the most urban, incorporating a transect of character and intensity within each. “Every $1000 added or subtracted to the price of a home in Collier County either allows 189 additional households to afford to purchase a median priced home, or puts that home out of their reach.” – NHBA Priced Out Report 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 848 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/16/17 - Page 27 Example: Figure 13. Smart Code Neighborhood Transect Zones Preserve East of Everglades Blvd. Golden Gate Estates Goodlette Rd-Collier Blvd. Pine Ridge Rd. US41 5th Ave S. Mercato Collier County currently implements a version of a smart code by using various elements of our Comprehensive Planning Process. The county is currently undertaking the re-study of four major elements of its comprehensive plan the results of which may move development to follow several elements of Smart Codes. Recommendation: Continue to study via the 4 restudy efforts, how housing affordability in Collier County could benefit from using a Smart Code. 8. Impact Fee Deferral Program Tindale Oliver recently conducted a study of Impact Fee Discount programs in counties and cities in Florida. The Tindale Oliver Impact Fee Discount report is attached as Exhibit E in the Appendix. Based on this study, it is concluded that Collier County’s current Impact Fee Deferral Program is already very advanced in comparison to other jurisdictions. The Impact Fee Deferral program has been in place since 2001. Impact fees are deferred on units earmarked for owner-occupied or rental housing for families with incomes up to 120% of Median Area Income. (3-person household earning less than $75,360 per year) However, further impact fee relief in consistently noted by the development community as a part of the remedy to achieve more housing that is affordable. Therefore, the following recommendations are made: It is suggested that the current Collier program be “fine-tuned” as follows: 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 849 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/16/17 - Page 28 • Increase the deferral period for Rental Developments from 10 years to 30 years. • Forgive Owner-Occupied deferrals after 15 years • Increase households served to 140% of Median Income (Gap Housing) • Add capacity to the program by increasing the percentage of collections from 3%, to 4% or 5%, of total collections of county impact fees. Since the 2005 ordinance update, the Impact Fee Deferral program has been capped at three percent (3%) of the total annual impact collections which represents a de minimus amount of the total. Reinstating the Housing Trust Fund Housing trust funds are established sources of funding for affordable housing construction and other related purposes created by governments in the United States (U.S.). The housing trust fund (HTF) is an example of a national best practice that Collier County currently has at its disposal but does not use. More than 700 HTFs exist nationwide, and they are often a critical element of a jurisdiction’s overall housing policy. One primary benefit of these instruments is the fact that there is local control over the allocation of the funds to match with the goals of the local jurisdiction. By reinstating the Affordable Housing Trust Fund (Fund), all voluntary donations or other revenue generated for affordable housing shall be deposited into the Fund. The Fund shall be maintained in an interest- bearing account and any interest derived from deposits in the Fund shall follow and remain within the Fun. Monies in the Fund, including interest and recaptured monies, shall be disbursed according to the eligible uses set forth and as approved by the Board and administered by the Community and Human Services Division. Awards from the Fund shall be made only at the discretion of the BCC. The Community and Human Services Division will act as the administrators of the fund and associated projects for the BCC. The AHAC will work with CHS staff to develop oversight protocols and specific eligibility criteria for BCC approval. (See Exhibits F, F.1 & F.2) [Sidebar Title] [Sidebars are great for calling out important points from your text or adding additional info for quick reference, such as a schedule. They are typically placed on the left, right, top or bottom of the page. But you can easily drag them to any position you prefer. When you’re ready to add your content, just click here and start typing.] 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 850 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/16/17 - Page 29 Figure 13. Proposed Uses of Housing Trust Fund Programs Developer Consumer Down Payment Assistance X Impact Fee Relief X X Land Acquisition/Pre Development Funding X Construction Loans X X Community Land Trust – land acquisition X Preserve existing affordable housing supply – For rehabilitating rental or owner occupied dwelling units X X Rental assistance X Local contribution for tax credit or SAIL applications X Disaster Recovery X X Priority scoring, or additional funds will be awarded to those projects that are mixed income, in activity centers, or on major transit routes (in particular on CAT routes). Additionally, 10% of all funds are set aside to benefit seniors and/or persons with disabilities. Many of these programs currently have, or will have, land use restrictions ranging from 15 years to 99 years depending upon the funding source requirements. A local funding source will allow for projects to receive “layered subsidies”, or multiple levels of assistance. The above list is not exhaustive, and the county commission by resolution may add or remove alternative affordable housing programs. It is recommended that the County reinstate its Housing Trust Fund. Stable Funding Sources The subcommittee focused its efforts on a variety of tools and methods to identify funding sources that are targeted to address Collier County identified needs. This subcommittee’s recommendations include: 1. Collier County’s HTF should be sustainable and predictable, given the long planning process involved in housing development. The county should keep in mind that what can make an HTF challenging is finding 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 851 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/16/17 - Page 30 viable, stable, recurring revenue sources. Other jurisdictions have funded their trust funds through sales taxes, real estate transfer taxes, linkage fees as part of the zoning ordinance, mixed income housing in- lieu fees, condominium conversion fees or demolition fees, and hotel and motel taxes. It is recommended to implement the following strategies to support the need for future housing that is affordable, and to the extent possible, address the existing backlog. Figure 14. Recommended Funding Sources Strategy Potential Revenue Include as a priority for lobbyists on staff or under contract with Collier County that the legislature appropriate all the Sadowski state and local housing trust funds for Florida’s housing programs. $2M Annually Adopt a Linkage Fee for Non-Residential uses $1/SF = $2M/yr (based on 2017 projection) Adopt an in-lieu of fee or donation of land in lieu of constructing required workforce units under the mixed income housing requirement $127,000/unit = $1,270,000/yr est. Sale proceeds from donated or surplus land designated for affordable housing Cannot assess Develop philanthropy in the form of cash or land donations Cannot assess Continue with Tax Increment Financing (Bayshore CRA), and consider similar structures for other CRA’s TBD for a new CRA Public/Private Partnerships Cannot assess Community Foundation/ other non- profits Cannot assess 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 852 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/16/17 - Page 31 Increase Funding from the Sadowski Act Fund One of the most highly recommended HTF funding sources is a real estate documentary stamp tax. However, in Florida, with the Sadowski Act Funding, this is already in use and not available for funding the local HTF. Instead, these funds are awarded to each county in the form of State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) funds based on an approved annual allocation. It is common knowledge that in most years, the state legislature does not fully allocate this funding, instead diverting some of it to meet other needs. The Local Housing Trust Fund already establishes a permanent source of local funding for affordable housing in Collier County, and is the single most effective source. However, legislation subjects this revenue to the appropriations process, which allows funds collected to be “swept” out of the trust fund and used for other purposes. For this reason, all of the revenue collected for affordable housing is not used for affordable housing. For example, of the $292.37 million in revenue available under a fully- funded scenario, only $137 million will be used for affordable housing programs. For Collier County, this means that of the $3.3 million allocation if fully-funded, the County will only receive $1.4 million. This is a significant shortfall in funding that otherwise would be and should be used to fund affordable housing. Therefore, to increase the ability to use this already established source, it is recommend increasing advocacy for full appropriation of the Sadowski Act trust funds. Non-Residential Linkage Fees Linkage fees “link” other forms of development with a community's needs for affordable housing. Linkage fees are typically charged to developers and then spent on affordable housing preservation or production through existing housing programs. Linkage fee ordinances are one way to leverage private markets to produce affordable housing, fund homeownership programs, or preserve existing affordable rental housing. Linkage fees help meet a housing need that may be produced when new development occurs. For instance, the development of an office or retail complex in an area will bring many employment opportunities to the area, including minimum wage jobs that may not pay enough so that a household can work and live in the same community – or even a nearby community that is connected to the workplace by affordable transit. Linkage fees, most 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 853 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/16/17 - Page 32 often charged to developers on a square foot basis, can then supplement an affordable housing funding program that targets certain areas. Figure 15 Proposed Non-Residential Linkage Fee Ordinance – (see draft ordinance in Appendix Exhibit G) (A) APPLICABILITY. All new non-residential construction occurring within the unincorporated area of the County shall be subject to the Linkage Fee in this ordinance at the time of issuance of a Building Permit. This includes additions to and redevelopment of existing properties, and the commercial and industrial portions of planned unit and mixed-use developments. This excludes churches, government buildings, educational institutions and Towns and Villages in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) of eastern Collier County. Towns and villages will have their own housing affordability requirements in their overlay which will be determined by conducting an affordable housing needs assessment and providing the required housing within their community boundaries. (B) LINKAGE FEE AMOUNT. All new commercial and industrial construction occurring within the unincorporated area of the County shall pay a Linkage Fee of $ 1 per square foot, and in accordance with the following: 1. For phased developments, the Linkage Fee shall be computed only for the square feet of development covered by the specific Building Permit. 2. Any Person who, prior to the effective date of this ordinance, agreed in writing as a condition of development approval to pay fees related to the shortage of Affordable Housing shall be responsible for the payment of such fees under the terms of such NON-RESIDENTIAL PERMITS Example Linkage Fee Requirements/Revenue YEAR Permitted SqFt $0.50/ft $1.00/ft $3.00/ft 2014 667,850 333,925$ 667,850$ 2,003,550$ 2015 1,647,162 823,581$ 1,647,162$ 4,941,486$ 2016 731,456 365,728$ 731,456$ 2,194,368$ 2017 (1/2yr)958,352 479,176$ 958,352$ 2,875,056$ 2017 Projected 1,916,704 958,352$ 1,916,704$ 5,750,112$ 2014-2017 (Projected) Total 4,963,172 2,481,586$ 4,963,172$ 14,889,516$ 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 854 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/16/17 - Page 33 agreement, and the payment of such fees by the Person will be offset against any Linkage Fees otherwise due under this ordinance at later stages of the development activity for which the fee was paid. Cities such as Jupiter, Winter Park and Coconut Creek have all implemented linkage fees in Florida. Commercial and high-end market rate residential development increase the need for employment of low wage workers who will be in need of affordable housing within the community. For example, in the San Francisco Bay area, one study shows that every high-tech job produces 4 other jobs across all income levels, including lower income jobs such as retail clerks and restaurant workers. A similar report shows that manufacturing jobs in Florida produce 2.5 additional jobs. High-end market rate residential development has a similar effect, in that residents of such development often demand services such as lawn care, maids, pool servicers and other lower-income jobs. Linkage fees are upheld by both federal and state law1. The legal basis of linkage fees is the two part Supreme Court test: • The nexus between what the government wants the landowner to do and a legitimate state interest. Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987); and • The requirement on the private landowner must be related “in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development.” Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 Linkage fees are generally charged on a per square foot basis. Rates in Florida vary from less than $1 per square foot to upwards of $35 per square foot. Linkage fees are set based on a balance between funding needed to meet a locality’s affordable needs and ensuring development remains financially feasible. A nexus study was completed for Collier County in 2006, which supports reasonable linkage fees ranging from $0.72 per square foot for residential to $43.46 per square foot for tourist properties. Fees are usually paid upfront at permitting. However, some localities allow payments to be made over time. Some also have allowable exceptions and exemptions for smaller developments or certain types of development. (Exhibit G) The basic steps to establish a linkage fee include: • Nexus and Feasibility Studies – in accordance with Nollan and Dolan, cities must first complete a nexus study to determine the actual impact of new development of various types on demand for 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 855 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/16/17 - Page 34 affordable housing as well as the maximum feasible fees development types can support in light of existing fees and other factors. • Implementation Plan – determine how the fees will be used, who will administer the fees, timing and basis for adjustments to the fees, and any alternatives offered for paying the fees (including developers actually building the housing) • Adoption – Draft and adopt the actual ordinance and regulations for the fee. The ordinance and regulations should be reviewed annually, and revised as economic conditions changed. It is recommended that Collier County adopt a nominal linkage of $1 per square foot of non-residential development (in line with other Florida jurisdictions). It is also recommended that Collier County complete a linkage fee nexus study to establish the legal basis for the fee. Mixed Income In-lieu of fees Such fees are generally established by one of two methods: • Affordability Gap Method – This method sets the fee based in the difference in purchase price or rent between market rate and what would be affordable to the target income level for the mixed income housing ordinance. For example, if the market or median home price is $400,000, and the target affordable price is $200,000, then the in-lieu fee would be $200,000 per housing unit required under the ordinance. • Production Cost Method – This method sets the fee based on the cost for the public to produce an affordable housing unit. For example, if it costs the public $200,000 to produce a unit. The method used is dependent upon the desired outcome. If the desire is to encourage developers to build the affordable housing, then the fee should be set high to serve a deterrent from utilizing the option. However, if the goal is to raise funds to support other programs, then the fee should be set lower so as not to deter utilization of the option. Other considerations would be application of the in-lieu fee i.e. should it be the same for each developer (should developers of homes costing in the millions pay the same rate as developers of lower-priced homes), or should it vary by location (should developers building in downtown or redevelopment sites, where it costs more to produce units, pay the same rate as developers in greenfield locations on the fringes). We recommend use of the affordability gap method. The general policy goal of mixed income housing is to encourage the production of affordable housing within higher-income communities, so that the lower-income 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 856 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/16/17 - Page 35 households can live in the communities where they work. The higher fees through the affordability gap method would tend to encourage production on site. However, the in-lieu fees generated would provide the level of funding needed to assist lower income buyers purchase homes or rent in those higher-income communities. (A) The mixed income requirements of the Mixed Income Housing ordinance may be satisfied by paying a $127,000/unit fee in lieu of developing the number of Units required. The fee for each unit is based on the affordability gap method. The total fee collected will be the per-unit fee for each unit type (for- sale or rental) times the number of units required under the mixed income housing ordinance. 1. The fees collected from these payments shall be deposited into the County’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund. 2. The fee shall be paid prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the residential development. 3. The method of determining the fee shall be reviewed periodically as necessary to ensure that the purposes and intent of this ordinance are met. (B) The Mixed Income Housing requirements of this ordinance may be satisfied by donating land within the County’s boundaries in unincorporated areas in lieu of developing the number of mixed income units required by the Mixed Income Housing ordinance. The proposed land to be donated shall be subject to the determination by the Board of County Commissioners that it is: 1. Suitable for development; 2. Equivalent in value to the applicable fee in lieu; 3. The value of the land shall be determined by one appraisal commissioned by the County and paid for by the developer; 4. The value of the land to be donated may alternatively be determined by relying on the purchase price of the land provided it has been the subject of a purchase by a bona fide purchaser for value within the past year; 5. The conveyance of the land to the County or Community Land Trust selected to administer the Workforce Housing Program on behalf of the County shall occur no later than at the time of application for a building permit. (C) In no case will any cash or land donations be returned to the developer, once such transaction is completed. It is recommended that Collier County accept Mixed Income Housing opt- out fees in the amount of $127,000 for each required unit not produced 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 857 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/16/17 - Page 36 based on the “affordability gap” method (to be adjusted annually based on current data). (Exhibit D) Sale proceeds from donated or surplus land designated for affordable housing In 2006, the Florida Legislature enacted Section 125.379, Florida Statutes, wherein each county is tasked to triennially prepare an inventory list of all real property within its jurisdiction to which the county holds fee simple title that may be declared appropriate for use or sale for the benefit of affordable housing. The Board of County Commissioners must review the inventory list at a public hearing and revise it as they choose. Following the public hearing, the governing body must adopt a resolution that includes an inventory list of such property. The Statute provides possible options for appropriate usage of this property to benefit affordable housing. The property may be offered for sale and the proceeds, above any amounts reimbursed to County funds, are available for eligible uses. The land, or the proceeds from sale, may be used for one of the following activities: 1. Purchase land for the development of affordable housing. 2. Increase the Housing Trust Fund earmarked for affordable housing. 3. Sell with the restriction that requires the purchaser to develop affordable housing. 4. Donate to a nonprofit housing organization for construction of permanent affordable housing. 5. Make the property available for use for the production and preservation of permanent affordable housing. It is also viable that land may be donated to the County for purposes of housing that is affordable. If it is determined to sell that property, the proceeds would be added to the HTF. It is recommended that any residual sale proceeds from surplus property also be added to the Housing Trust Fund. Philanthropy in the form of cash or land donations Collier County is an affluent community and consequently it is appropriate to consider philanthropy as a revenue mechanism, be it in the form of cash or land. Collier would accept cash donations into the HTF, and accept land donations into the Community Land Trust for use as affordable housing, or make donated lands available for sale, placing the proceeds into the HTF. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 858 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/16/17 - Page 37 Collier would reserve the right to only accept lands that are unencumbered and appropriate for use in whole or in part for housing that is affordable. Collier would need to develop appropriate legal mechanisms and a method for creating documentation required by donors for tax purposes. It is recommended that that any cash or land donations for housing that is affordable be accepted by the county. Continue with Tax Increment Financing (Bayshore CRA), and consider similar structures for other CRA’s The Bayshore/Gateway Redevelopment Agency (CRA) was created by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners on March 14, 2000 by Resolution 2000-82. The total area comprises approximately 1,800 acres with a wide range of residential and commercial properties. Funding for the CRA comes from Tax Increment Finance (TIF). TIF is a portion of the property taxes generated above what was received by the County prior to the CRA being established and does not result in any additional tax to the resident. Bayshore/Gateway Redevelopment Plan was approved on June 13, 2000 by Resolution 2000-181 to address deteriorating physical and economic conditions then prevailing within Bayshore/Gateway Triangle area. This approach for raising revenue for housing that is affordable could use with other CRA’s. It is recommended that the County continue using CRA funds to correct deteriorating physical and economic conditions, including housing affordability issues, and adopt a TIF for any future new CRAs. Backlog There exists not only the need for future development of housing that is affordable, but also a need to alleviate an existing backlog of demand. Local property tax revenue can be used as a permanent source of funding for affordable housing. In most cases nationwide, property tax revenue for affordable housing is raised by an affordable housing levy. A successful example is the Seattle Affordable Housing Levy, which has raised over $388 million since its first approval in 1981. The most recent re-approval in 2016, which was approved by 68% of the vote, stands to raise as much as $290 million over the next seven years. However, levies are an additional tax subject to renewal by voters. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 859 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/16/17 - Page 38 Figure 16. Additional Revenue Sources Strategy Potential Revenue Include use of funds for affordable housing with potential Sales Tax referendum/program with funds allocated to a Housing Trust Fund annually. Undetermined Establish a certain percentage or dollar amount from ad valorem taxes to be allocated to a Housing Trust Fund annually. Undetermined It is recommended that, if the Board of County Commissioners desires to make a more profound impact on the back-log of housing affordability issues, to move forward with one or both of the funding sources identified in Figure 16 above. Funds allocated from the General Fund should be provided on a one-to-one match for funding collected through the non- residential linkage fee. These sources would serve to spread the response to housing affordability throughout the County, and not only on new development. Additional Housing Programs and Initiatives The County may provide funding for housing rehabilitation/sustainability assistance, preservation, homeownership assistance, rental assistance, and special needs housing opportunities for low to moderate income households. The County will utilize Federal, State, and local funding sources to conduct activities associated with all housing and programs and initiatives. The rules and regulations associated with each Federal, State, and local funding sources will govern the use of such funds and shall be in accordance, where appropriate, with the following documents: • Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan (CDBG, HOME, ESG); • Local Housing Assistance Plan (SHIP); and • Applicable Federal, State and Local Policy and Procedures Manual All planning and policy documents will be made available on the County’s website and at the offices of the Community and Human Services Division. The availability of funds for the programs will be advertised in a newspaper of general circulation within the County or Request for Proposals issued by the County. Current County programs fall under these primary categories: Homeownership, Rental Housing, Special Needs Housing, Housing Sustainability, Fair Housing and Accessibility. Many of these programs have 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 860 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/16/17 - Page 39 a lien and/or land use restriction ranging from 15 years to 30 years in accordance with each programs guidelines and funding source requirements. A. Homeownership programs may include down payment assistance in the form of first or second mortgages, grants, sale of County owned property, donation of County owned property to eligible non-profits including CHDOs, financing to non-profit and for-profit developers for the construction of owner occupied units, and construction of single family homes. The County will also maintain programs that preserve homeownership including providing funding for the rehabilitation of owner occupied housing, promoting housing counseling and homeownership reservation initiatives. B. Rental Housing - Affordable rental assistance programs may include tenant based assistance, facility/project based assistance, security deposit and short-term rental assistance, financing to non-profit and for- profit developers for the construction of affordable rentals, donation of County owned property to eligible non-profits including CHDOs, and grants for new construction of affordable rental housing units. SHIP funds can be used to meet the SAIL local contribution requirement C. Special Needs Housing - The Community and Human Services Division of the County will ensure that all housing programs funded by the County include set-asides or priorities for special needs populations. Special needs populations include the homeless, veterans with a service connected disability, developmentally and physically disabled, and children aging out of foster care. Priority or set-aside may include units that serve specific special needs populations through access to support services and/or unit features that ensure accessibility. D. Housing Sustainability - The Community and Human Services Division will insure that funding priority and consideration will be given to housing construction projects that include “green” or sustainable features such as solar panels, rain water capture and storage, tank-less water heaters, high efficiently insulation and architectural features that enhance energy savings. Projects where a portion or all of the units are designated as smoke free will also be given priority consideration for funding. E. Fair Housing/ Accessibility - Any entity or individual receiving housing assistance or incentives through the County’s housing programs must comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 861 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/16/17 - Page 40 1990, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, and the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 when applicable. No entity or individual that receives housing assistance from Collier County may discriminate or deny access to housing on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. F. Disaster Housing Recovery – Historically, funding has been allocated to Collier County by the State and Federal governments in response to declared disasters. Collier County was awarded over $14 million in state and federal disaster funding for Hurricane Wilma. This funding was expended for the course of seven years following to repair and replace housing units destroyed by the storm. It is anticipated that Collier County will received significant disaster funding as a result of Hurricane Irma. Collier County also maintains a Disaster Housing Strategy that was approved by the BCC in July of 2010. This strategy details specific actions, coordination, and responsibilities that are implements in post disaster housing recovery. Figure 17. Chart of Existing Grant Resources Resource General Uses Annual Revenue (Est) HUD- CDBG Infrastructure, land acquisition, purchase assistance $1.5M HUD- HOME Construction or rehab of units $350,000 FHFC- SHIP Purchase assistance, rehab or new construction $1.5M Community Land Trust and Public Lands This Subcommittee recommends specific publicly owned properties to pursue for housing development and the creation of a Community Land Trust (CLT). 1. Establish a dedicated land trust administered by a non-profit entity (public-private partnership) A. Accept donations of land in-lieu of the Mixed Income Housing requirement. B. Hold land in perpetuity (99 yr land lease) for the development and preservation of affordable housing stock. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 862 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/16/17 - Page 41 C. Acquire land using in-lieu of fees or other stable funding sources (See attached Community Land Trust information in the Appendix) D. Provide initial funding in the amount of $100,000 for establishment and development of a new Community Land Trust in Collier County. 2. Identify sources of land and process for incorporating parcels into the land trust 3. It is recommended that the BCC continue its current public policy whereby any property considered surplus land (without a designated use or which the designated use is no longer needed) must first be offered to any public entity for a use that is a public benefit. If there is more than one entity interested, the County evaluates and weights the level of importance and need of the agencies and allocates the land to the highest and greatest uses. If there are no interested parties, the parcel is sold through open bidding or included in a RFP for development. 4. It is recommended that the BCC adopt a new public policy that places priority on affordable housing in all future public land acquisitions and encourages the co-location of housing and public facilities. Community Land Trusts for Collier County Under traditional homeownership subsidy programs, the subsidized home can be sold at the market appreciated sales price, with recapture of the original subsidy upon resale. Because of market appreciation, the recaptured subsidy is wholly inadequate for the local government to get another family into homeownership. The local government or other subsidy provider must then expend an even greater amount of subsidy to provide a homeownership opportunity to the next homebuyer. It is this massive drain on already depleted public resources which is driving local governments to increasingly explore the community land trust option. Using a community land trust (CLT) is a way to stop losing ground both figuratively and literally. The nonprofit CLT retains ownership of the land to remove this subsidized housing from the speculative market so that the homes remain permanently affordable. The CLT approach results in permanent nonprofit ownership of the land, which is leased to lower- income households, who receive assistance to buy homes developed on the CLT land. The CLT transfers title of the house to an income qualified buyer but retains title of the underlying land. By excluding the price of the land (which in some parts of Florida, dwarfs the costs of the improvements), and arranging additional subsidies (such as SHIP) to assist the buyer’s purchase of the house, the overall purchase price is made affordable and the monthly mortgage PITI payments are often more affordable than renting. CLTs also Using a community land trust (CLT) is a way to stop losing ground both figuratively and literally. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 863 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/16/17 - Page 42 provide an excellent source of rental housing, often time in single family homes, which are attractive to families with children or elderly parents. In return for the significant subsidies required to develop this affordable homeownership opportunity, the CLT imposes resale restrictions on the improvements through the 99-year ground lease, which ensures that the property will remain affordable in perpetuity. The owner of a CLT home is required to sell to a similarly qualified buyer at a restricted price, determined by a resale formula found in the ground lease. The typical ground lease mandates a resale price based on the homeowner’s down payment, plus the sum of principal payments made on the mortgage, and limits appreciation to one quarter of what appreciation would have been for the property if owned in fee simple. By dramatically limiting appreciation, CLT homes remain affordable to new homebuyers without the need for significant additional subsidies. (Exhibit H) Governance and Operations The typical community land trust board is made up of three groups in equal representation: • Resident members – CLT homeowners • General members – residents of the community that do not own CLT homes • Public members – those who represent the public interest). Public members can include elected officials, municipal staff, and/or representatives from other local nonprofits. Boards range in size from less than 10 to over 20. The size and makeup of the Board will depend upon the specific goals of the land trust and the makeup of the community. The size and election process of the Board will be included in the Bylaws. In most cases, CLTs operate as independent organizations. In the early stage, staff may be comprised completely of volunteers. However, eventually paid staff will be needed to carry out the day-to-day functions of the CLT and implement the direction of the Board. Most nonprofit organizations start with either an Executive Director or Administrator. Starting with an Executive Director is to look for someone with long-term managerial skills or the potential to develop them. Starting with an Administrator usually calls for someone with more limited yet important organizational skills to carry on certain tasks and responsibilities for the short term until an Executive Director can be hired. Ultimately, a basic staff should include at least 3 individuals: an Executive Director to provide overall leadership and represent the organization in the community (including elected officials, other nonprofits, realtors, lenders, etc.), a Counselor/Educator who works directly with homebuyers and/or renters, and an Administrative Assistant to support the entire operation. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 864 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/16/17 - Page 43 Community Land Trusts in Florida Community land trusts began to emerge in Florida in the early 2000s in response to the housing boom and rapid rise in purchase prices at that time. There is no enabling legislation required for community land trusts. They are Florida nonprofit organizations, usually with section 501(c)(3) IRS tax exemption approval. However, community land trusts should employ the assistance of attorneys experienced in corporate and real estate law for both start up and operations. Current Status Community land trusts are now well-established in Florida. The table below summarizes the current state of several of the state’s community land trusts: Figure 18. Land Trusts in Florida Community Land Trust Name: South Florida Community Land Trust Neighborhood Renaissance, Inc. Community Land Trust of Palm Beach County, Inc. Year Founded 2006 2005 2006 Geographic Area served Broward and Miami-Dade Counties West Palm Beach Palm Beach County Number of Staff 4 6 2 Number of Ownership Units 8 13 29 Number of Rental Units 55 80 82 Anticipated Growth over next two years (through 2019) At least 6 additional homeownership units 36 rental and 25 homeownership (deed restricted per local government program) 32 ownership units Commercial property ownership and plans None owned at this time, but considering co- working or office space for non-profits None within the land trust Owns a small commercial space within a rental community Annual budgets for these CLTs range from around $800,000 to $1.6 million. Funding sources include local government grants (HOME funds), foundation grants, ground lease fees, bank grants and lines of credit, membership fees 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 865 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/16/17 - Page 44 and other charitable donations. It should be noted that of the three CLTs in the chart above, only one offers membership to the community and collects membership fees. With the resurgence of the housing market, the second wave of CLTs is developing in various communities throughout the state. Some communities are looking at regional community land trusts. The South Florida Community Land Trust stands to serve as the model for a regional CLT, with its expansion from Broward into Miami-Dade County. Also, the South Florida Community Land Trust Network serves as a model for regional CLT consortiums, as member organizations throughout south Florida are able to leverage resources to grow their individual footprints, expecting to reach a combined 374 units by the end of 2017. Recommendations for Collier County 1. A Community Land Trust in Collier County should be established to manage a proposed Mixed Income Housing Program established by ordinance, which includes mixed income and linkage fee requirements. 2. All donations of land in-lieu under the program would go to the Community Land Trust to hold in perpetuity for the development and preservation of a stock of housing that is affordable. 3. The Community Land Trust would also be responsible for monitoring compliance with the Mixed Income Housing Program ordinance, particularly adherence to restrictive covenants that require sale or lease of properties to income-eligible households at affordable prices. 4. Additionally, the County may decide to deed any surplus land suitable for affordable housing development to the Community Land Trust. 5. It is further recommended that the municipalities of the City of Naples and the City of Marco Island be encouraged to adopt similar initiatives or contribute themselves to the Community Land Trust. Public Lands Review Numerous meetings have been conducted at both staff and committee levels to review publicly owned lands where housing might be developed or co-located with government uses. The initial list of thousands of properties was reviewed and analyzed with these top four (4) properties being recommended for housing development through a Request for Proposal (RFP) process. Additional analysis for each site is available in Appendix Exhibit I. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 866 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/16/17 - Page 45 A. Bayshore CRA 17+ acre parcel is currently out for development proposals. Proposals were received on August 31, 2017. A Selection committee & CRA Board will review and make recommendations to the Board. B. Bembridge PUD - Public Utilities has performed a feasibility study to relocate Master Pump Station 313 from Countryside to the 5 acre Bembridge site. Public Utilities has the funds to reimburse Impact Fees for the parcel. Countryside was the original proposed site for MPS 313 expansion but the residents were opposed so the Bembridge site was offered as an alternative. Impact fee funds would need to be paid to acquire the parcel for housing. The Bembridge site was previously the subject of a workforce housing RFP Competition and extensive planning and design efforts have already been completed for the site. C. Randall Curve parcel is over 47 acres and was deeded to the County for use as a public park and has a Statutory Deed. With the development of a regional park in the area this site is not needed for a park. Mixed use development may be proposed for the site, of which housing that is affordable may be one component. D. Grey Oaks/Livingston Road parcel is 21 acres along the west side of Livingston Road and a part of the Grey Oaks PUD. The 21 acres owned by the County would need to be removed from the Grey Oaks PUD to be developed for housing. The site is central to jobs and employment centers. It is recommended that RFPs be developed for the construction of housing that is affordable on parcels B, C, & D above. Transportation Enhancements Transportation to and from employment centers in Collier, or outlying communities, puts a strain on the existing infrastructure based on the jobs- housing imbalance that exists in Southwest Florida. Currently, the average headway (the average interval of time between buses pausing at a given stop on a route) in Collier County is 1.5 hours, with the shortest headway at 45 minutes. For transit riders dependent on a bus service to get to work or to other services, the infrequency of the service can make transportation and access an increased difficulty. For riders who might have multiple stops or transfers, those headways can change what would be a short car ride into an all-morning or all evening commute. If directed effectively, however, the transit service can be an extraordinary asset for the Collier County workforce, potentially reducing the group’s commute and car ownership costs. According to the Federal Highway 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 867 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/16/17 - Page 46 Administration (FHWA), the average American family spends 19 percent of its household budget on transportation. For families that are in transit-efficient locations, this cost decreases to 9 percent; for those in auto-dependent communities, it increases to 25 percent. Thus, transportation costs can directly add or subtract substantial funds from families’ household budgets, thereby increasing cost burdens or providing more flexibility in household budgets. Recommendation #1: Integrate Bus Routes with Affordable Housing Locations 1. Activity: Identify transportation corridors for multi-family development to ensure such developments are supported by transit. 2. Activity: Implement park-and-ride systems throughout the County to incentivize use of public transit. 3. Activity: Explore bus rapid transit and express service lines to improved access to employment. According to the Collier County MPO’s 2014 Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Study—a complementary report to the 2012 Comprehensive Pathways Plan—a survey of 478 respondents resulted in 62 percent reporting that they had felt “threatened for personal safety during bicycling or walking trips.” For Collier County to reduce transportation road costs, effectively move the workforce across the community, and create healthy avenues for residents to engage in civic activities, this number must be mitigated and the recommendations of both studies should be advanced. The Comprehensive Pathways Plan is being updated, with completion anticipated in mid-2018. The draft recommends aligning new pathways construction (bicycle and pedestrian facilities) with transit routes, stops and transfer centers and identifies bicycle/pedestrian Safety Focus Areas based on crash statistics. Steps toward enhancing the use of transit, bicycling, and walking for at least a portion of daily trips should be encouraged. Recommendation #2: Enhance Bike Lane and Pedestrian Systems 1. Activity: Implement the Comprehensive Pathways Plan for the county. 2. Activity: Enhance safety focusing on pedestrian and cyclist and vulnerable road users. With smart phone apps and online connectivity, fantastic and successful tools for ride sharing are available that can be conveniently and affordably accessed. The county should explore promoting such resources and working with nonprofits to promote convenient ride-sharing options for populations living in more suburban or remote areas, like the Estates, Ave Maria, or Immokalee. The New Orleans Regional Planning Commission sponsors one such rideshare platform, the New Orleans GreenRide, which uses a social media platform to connect riders and carpoolers. “…the workforce of Collier County needs a range of transportation options that align with and support a range of housing choices in a variety of areas.” –ULI Panel Report 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 868 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/16/17 - Page 47 Recommendation #3: Ride Sharing Options for Enhanced Mobility 1. Activity: Transit staff is encouraged to coordinate with nonprofits and other groups to Create Ride-Sharing Option for remote areas of the County. Collier Area Transit (CAT) is serving an increasingly vital need in the county as workforce demands intensify and traffic concerns grow. However, if the service is going to be able to keep up with the demands already placed on it, a critical element is that the service has a sustainable source of revenue it can leverage and depend on. Given the expenses of highways ($4.6 million per lane mile), prioritizing proactive investments in transit today could save the county significant funds in the future. In addition, given the growing bike and pedestrian needs of the county and the multitude of community benefits that those amenities provide, a revenue source should also be identified and provided for such additional capacity Recommendation #4: Revenue for Transit and Alternative Mobility 1. Activity: Establish Sustainable, Secure Revenue for Transit and Alternative Mobility. 2. Activity: Implement a Recurring Revenue Source for transit (i.e.: Mobility Fee; MSTU; etc.) to meet the operations demands. 3. Activity: Establish uniform standards to measure the impact of development on Transit; Transit and other forms of alternative transportation are critical for many renters. Renters are more likely than other households to depend on transportation modes other than their own cars to reach work, shopping, and other activities. This is particularly true for seniors, the disabled and those with low incomes. Seven percent of Florida households have no vehicle at home. However, this number increases to 14 percent for renters and to 18 percent for renters with incomes between 30 and 60 percent of AMI. The share of no-vehicle households continues to increase for extremely low income renters, especially older households, until a majority of ELI (Extremely Low Income) renters over age 75 have no access to a vehicle at home. As Collier County’s population continues to age there will be an increased need for affordable rental housing with access to transit, paratransit, and other forms of alternative transportation. “Providing a more integrated network of mobility not only provides workforce access but also provides access to healthier lifestyles. In addition, with estimated road costs averaging 4.6 million per lane-mile, identifying proactive approaches that will reduce congestion and stress on roadways will save the county significant funds in the future.” - ULI Panel Report (pg 29) 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 869 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/16/17 - Page 48 Communication and Outreach/Engagement The Communication and Engagement subcommittee has made recommendations to help educate the community on the need for and importance of housing that is affordable to a wide range of individuals and families that live and work in Collier County. There is a need to continue to communicate the need for more rental apartment availability…it appears that point can’t be stressed enough, particularly with millennial workforce. Their recommendations are: 1. Create an online, near-real-time updated Current Inventory of Affordable Housing Availability (purchase and rental) along with links to Information & Resources, outlining all available programs. 2. Recommend the County create an easy to find, one click “housing- focused” website briefly explaining and connecting currently available housing resources. Recommend that if the Commissioners don’t want to add staff that they contract with a 3rd party to keep up the website and provide a “human element” (“Housing Resource Specialist”) that focuses every day on helping citizens find housing solutions and opportunities. A. Develop & release an RFP (late fall 2017) for an agency to provide both a custom website and staffing to support the Housing One-Stop. The website development alone with the associated algorithms could cost close to $80,000, plus associated staff costs. B. Provide initial funding of $100,000 for development and nonprofit management 3. Develop a Marketing, PR & Communications Plan to continue to educate the community on who needs housing and is having trouble finding it; why do we need to address the situation; and what’s the impact of no action; and keep the public aware of efforts and impact. A. Educate residents and “change the narrative” to present affordable housing as a necessity and a shared public responsibility B. Create PSA’s, short videos and social media and other vehicles to continually educate the public on housing affordability issues. Show images of a nurse, teacher, bank manager, sheriff’s deputy, mid-level managers, etc. and explain that we need them, and they need housing that’s affordable. Images of the elderly and other working citizens. Have Dr. Weiss Affordable housing is an essential part of every community’s infrastructure. It is one of the cornerstones to creating a healthy, vibrant and sustainable community. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 870 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/16/17 - Page 49 (nurses & healthcare), Dr. Patton (teachers) and Sheriff Rambosk (sheriff’s deputies) make brief video statements on how housing challenges are beginning to impact their ability to recruit and keep staff, and that when those staff live outside our community, we lose their spending and their potential off-work contributions in our neighborhoods (coach, volunteer, youth leader, etc.). C. A marketing campaign involving surveying for baseline understanding, executing a marketing plan to raise awareness and understanding, and then post-marketing surveying to determine if we’ve moved the needle. The goal is to inform & encourage more citizens to feel more inclined to support such housing (Can I Be Your Neighbor? Yes in My Back Yard campaigns), and realize the benefit of being able to provide housing for a range of workforce needs that impact their lives and build community D. Begin a campaign to clarify what we mean by “affordable housing” and “workforce housing” – using both short videos and social media to define the issue and who it impacts. This effort could have a County component explaining the issue (not campaigning, but explaining), and a business component that would engage the private sector – for instance, engage the Chamber’s GAIN and Leadership Collier classes and alumni as the “face of workforce housing,” demonstrating the quality of our workforce members (who currently often can’t afford to live in Collier County). E. Plus, we need to show what 16-30 housing units per acre looks like, in terms of apartments, townhouses and homes. This seems to be a constant sticking point. Also, we learned how there will need to be more caregivers (the federal minimums are increasing) to take care of our aging (and increasingly income-constrained) population, yet we have a shortage of housing that would be affordable to caregiver staff. Can we assume they will live outside of Collier County and commute each day in large enough numbers to meet the demand? 4. Also consider solutions that don’t involve construction. For example, Hillsborough County offers assistance with down payments. Plus, some resort communities include connections to VRBO properties as an access to transitional housing that’s affordable (an owner may be willing to do a 1 year rental, at an overall lower price than the seasonal rate, but making the same amount of money as a 6-month rental). Anything that could be 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 871 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/16/17 - Page 50 done to provide more awareness of properties that are already in existence. Most Critical Need and Combination of Strategies The need for affordable rental housing is one of the major challenges for our community. Businesses that are recruiting for professionals or those employers that hire seasonal health care or hospitality employees, have difficulty finding vacant rental units for their permanent relocation, or seasonal employment. Existing rental communities have a very low vacancy rate of 3%-4% which is insufficient to accommodate population growth or current residents in need of a new rental units. This current situation also imposes huge burdens on renters if units are taken out of service such as an apartment complex fire (Bear Creek, April 2017) or a natural disaster such as Hurricane Irma. The County currently administers some State & Federal grant programs that target rental housing. In the 1990’s and early 2000’s there were a number of apartment communities built utilizing programs including Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC), State Apartment Incentive Loan (SAIL) program, Federal Home Loan Bank Board funding and other resources. However, since the mid-2000’s we have not seen new rental apartment communities come online as the county’s population continues to grow. In addition, apartment communities built utilizing LIHTC and other programs regularly convert to market rate housing after the subsidies and use restrictions expire (30ys+/-). We have recently “lost” five apartment communities whose subsidies have expired and five more communities’ subsidies will expire between 2022-2028. Each apartment community that converts to market rate has the ability to impact 50 to over 250 households. To accommodate population and associated employment growth, many of the strategies proposed in this plan will help to increase the supply of much needed rental housing. These strategies include the Affordable Housing Density Bonus (AHDB), Mixed-Income Housing, Community Land Trust (CLT), Linkage Fees, local Housing Trust Fund (HTF), Impact Fee Discounts, and other programs. Many of these programs are intended to be layered to provide sufficient incentives for developers to build much needed rental housing. Utilizing the Affordable Housing Density Bonus program (AHDB), rental developments are built at higher multi-family densities. The Mixed Income Housing requirement will produce units at various income ranges to be included in market rate communities, with a set aside for seniors and special needs, or opt to build a housing development off-site. Funds in the local housing trust fund (HTF), including linkage fees, percent of sales tax/ad valorum, and donations, could be used to provide a local match to aid apartment developments competing for state and federal funding, thereby boosting their chances of award. In addition, rental developments could be built on land owned by a non-profit community land trust (CLT) which would result in long-term (99 years) affordability. Together, all of these programs, 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 872 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/16/17 - Page 51 and others, will help the county increase the supply of rental housing that is affordable to accommodate its future population and employment growth. Closing the Gap In an effort to address the housing affordability crisis in Collier County, local government and the business community must partner to quickly implement some short term, medium, and long term initiatives. To paraphrase the ULI, now is the time for action. The future sustainability, livability, vibrancy, and quality of life of our community is at stake. The following table demonstrates how this plan addresses the current and future need for housing that is affordable for our workforce and low-income seniors and special needs populations. Figure 19. Housing Response Model Figure 18. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 873 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/16/17 - Page 52 Implementation Plan/Schedule The Community Housing Plan recommendations to be undertaken are: Immediate Action • Approve the Community Housing Plan • Adopt New Definition of Affordable Housing – Housing Affordability • Adopt new Housing Demand Methodology • Direct staff to advertise Mixed Income Housing Ordinance • Commission a nexus study and direct staff to advertise Linkage Fee Ordinance • Amend the Affordable Housing Density Bonus (AHDB) program • Reinstate the Housing Trust Fund and adopt funding sources • Advocate for full funding of the Sadowski Housing Trust Fund • Adopt a policy to address housing that is affordable in future public land acquisitions. • Prepare a Request for Proposal (RFP) making County owned sites available for housing development. • Adopt amended Impact Fee Relief program Short Term (1-3 Years) • Partner with a local nonprofit organization on the creation of a Community Land Trust and provide financial assistance of $100,000 for the first two years. • Create a concurrent zoning review/approval process to reduce the cost of affordable housing construction and expedite new housing • Develop a marketing & communications plan and expand educational programs including household budgeting • Update the Land Development Code to include new housing programs and definitions • Update the inventory of affordable housing units regularly • Fund the Housing Trust Fund (HTF) through local initiatives • Develop guidelines to require mixed income residential housing in activity centers • Adopt public policies regarding use of County owned land • Provide administrative approvals of certain affordable housing applications 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 874 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County Community Housing Plan- 10/16/17 - Page 53 • Provide an increase in density in the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) areas and along transit corridors • Continuously review and monitor the LDC and Growth Management Plan to update and ensure the goal of increasing housing affordability is being met • Develop an administrative process for commercial to residential conversions • Build Developer Capacity • Build Housing Development Corporation Capacity Long Term (4-10 years) • Continue to conduct an annual review of the Housing Trust Fund (HTF) and report on expenditures and accomplishments • Review and adjust the mixed income housing, Linkage Fee, and Density Bonus programs as needed to balance the needs of residents, developers and the current market • Continue to monitor all housing initiatives to ensure that the goal of increased housing affordability is being met • Continuously review and monitor all affordable housing incentive programs to ensure they are on track and meeting goals • Continuously review and monitor the affordable housing inventory, marketing & communications plan, and other educational tools and programs to ensure the goal are being met 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 875 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing ULI Collier Housing Assessment 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 876 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing A ULI Advisory Services Panel ReportA ULI Advisory Services Panel ReportCollier County Florida January 29–February 3, 2017 Collier_Cover.indd 2 5/17/17 11:17 AM 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 877 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County Florida Expanding Housing Affordability January 29–February 3, 2017 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 878 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report2 About the Urban Land Institute THE URBAN LAND INSTITUTE is a global, member- driven organization comprising more than 40,000 real estate and urban development professionals dedicated to advancing the Institute’s mission of providing leadership in the responsible use of land and creating and sustaining thriving communities worldwide. ULI’s interdisciplinary membership represents all aspects of the industry, including developers, property owners, investors, architects, urban planners, public officials, real estate brokers, appraisers, attorneys, engineers, finan- ciers, and academics. Established in 1936, the Institute has a presence in the Americas, Europe, and Asia Pacific regions, with members in 76 countries. The extraordinary impact that ULI makes on land use deci- sion making is based on its members sharing expertise on a variety of factors affecting the built environment, includ- ing urbanization, demographic and population changes, new economic drivers, technology advancements, and environmental concerns. Peer-to-peer learning is achieved through the knowledge shared by members at thousands of convenings each year that reinforce ULI’s position as a global authority on land use and real estate. In 2016 alone, more than 3,200 events were held in 340 cities around the world. Drawing on the work of its members, the Institute recog- nizes and shares best practices in urban design and devel- opment for the benefit of communities around the globe. More information is available at uli.org. Follow ULI on Twit- ter, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram. Cover photos: Wilhelm Rosenkranz (top); Beth Silverman (bottom). © 2017 by the Urban Land Institute 2001 L Street, NW Suite 200 Washington, DC 20036-4948 All rights reserved. Reproduction or use of the whole or any part of the contents without written permission of the copy- right holder is prohibited. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 879 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County, Florida, January 29–February 3, 2017 3 About ULI Advisory Services THE GOAL OF THE ULI ADVISORY SERVICES pro- gram is to bring the finest expertise in the real estate field to bear on complex land use planning and development projects, programs, and policies. Since 1947, this program has assembled well over 600 ULI-member teams to help sponsors find creative, practical solutions for issues such as downtown redevelopment, land management strate- gies, evaluation of development potential, growth manage- ment, community revitalization, brownfield redevelopment, military base reuse, provision of low-cost and affordable housing, and asset management strategies, among other matters. A wide variety of public, private, and nonprofit or- ganizations have contracted for ULI’s advisory services. Each panel team is composed of highly qualified profes- sionals who volunteer their time to ULI. They are chosen for their knowledge of the panel topic and are screened to ensure their objectivity. ULI’s interdisciplinary panel teams provide a holistic look at development problems. A respected ULI member who has previous panel experience chairs each panel. The agenda for a five-day panel assignment is intensive. It includes an in-depth briefing day composed of a tour of the site and meetings with sponsor representatives, a day of hour-long interviews of typically 50 to 100 key community representatives, and two days of formulating recommendations. Long nights of discussion precede the panel’s conclusions. On the final day on site, the panel makes an oral presentation of its findings and conclusions to the sponsor. A written report is prepared and published. Because the sponsoring entities are responsible for significant preparation before the panel’s visit, including sending extensive briefing materials to each member and arranging for the panel to meet with key local community members and stakeholders in the project under consider- ation, participants in ULI’s five-day panel assignments are able to make accurate assessments of a sponsor’s issues and to provide recommendations in a compressed amount of time. A major strength of the program is ULI’s unique ability to draw on the knowledge and expertise of its members, including land developers and owners, public officials, academics, representatives of financial institutions, and others. In fulfillment of the mission of the Urban Land Institute, this Advisory Services panel report is intended to provide objective advice that will promote the responsible use of land to enhance the environment. ULI Program Staff Thomas W. Eitler Senior Vice President, Advisory Services Beth Silverman Senior Director, Advisory Services Paul Angelone Director, Advisory Services Steven Gu Associate, Advisory Services James A. Mulligan Senior Editor David James Rose Editor/Manager Sara Proehl, Publications Professionals LLC Manuscript Editor Betsy Van Buskirk Creative Director Deanna Pineda, Muse Advertising Design Graphic Designer Craig Chapman Senior Director, Publishing Operations 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 880 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report4 Acknowledgments ON BEHALF OF THE URBAN LAND INSTITUTE, the panel would like to thank our sponsors, the Board of Coun- ty Commissioners of Collier County—Penny Taylor, Donna Fiala, Andy Solis, Burt L. Saunders, and William L. McDan- iel Jr. The panel would also like to thank the city of Naples, the city of Marco Island, Everglades City, the Collier County Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, and the Commu- nity Housing Plan Stakeholders Committee for inviting the panel to examine housing affordability challenges in the county, and it thanks the community at large for being so warm and welcoming. Special appreciation goes to Kimberly Grant, director of Community and Housing Services; Cormac Giblin, Grants and Housing Development manager; Steve Carnell, head of Public Services; County Manager Leo Ochs; and the rest of the county staff members for the time and effort they have devoted to the project. In addition, the panel expresses its appreciation to Steve Hruby, Nick Kouloheras, and the other members of the affordable housing committee for their assistance and support throughout the engagement. The panel also thanks ULI Southwest Florida, which will continue to be a local resource for Collier County moving forward. Finally, the panel would like to thank the approximately 90 residents, business and community leaders, and repre- sentatives from the Greater Collier County community who shared their perspectives and insights during the panel’s stakeholder interviews. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 881 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County, Florida, January 29–February 3, 2017 5 Contents ULI Panel and Project Staff ...............................................................................................................................6 Background and the Panel’s Assignment ..........................................................................................................7 Study Area and Surrounding Context .................................................................................................................9 Current Conditions ........................................................................................................................................11 Vision: What Do You Want to Be When You Grow Up? .....................................................................................17 Implementation ..............................................................................................................................................20 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................37 Appendix A: Implementation Schedule ............................................................................................................38 Appendix B: Examples of County Housing Initiatives .........................................................................................39 Appendix C: City of Austin, 2014 Robert C. Larson Policy Leadership Award Winner .........................................40 About the Panel .............................................................................................................................................43 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 882 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report6 ULI Panel and Project Staff Panel Chair Philip Payne Principal and Chief Executive Officer Ginkgo Residential Charlotte, North Carolina Panel Members Hilary Chapman Housing Program Manager Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Washington, D.C. Ian Colgan Assistant Executive Director Oklahoma City Housing Authority Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Joanne Fiebe Florida Center for Community Design and Research School of Architecture and Community Design, University of South Florida Tampa, Florida Lacy McManus Director of Program Development Greater New Orleans Inc. New Orleans, Louisiana John Orfield Principal BOKA Powell Dallas, Texas Cassie Wright Project Manager Urban Ventures LLC Denver, Colorado ULI Project Staff Beth Silverman Senior Director, Advisory Services Steven Gu Associate, Advisory Services 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 883 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County, Florida, January 29–February 3, 2017 7 COLLIER COUNTY HAS BEEN DESCRIBED as “unique” and “one of the most beautiful places in the world.” Although the community is unique, the issue of housing affordability is not. In fact, virtually every commu- nity in the nation is, to some degree, struggling with this issue. It is especially true in retirement and resort commu- nities, which have significant numbers of service workers and high real estate values. The issue of housing affordability is not new. The panel is impressed with the time, the effort, and the quality of work that has been invested in this subject by the commission- ers and Collier County staff. Many of the panel’s recom- mendations mirror and ratify the work that has already been done. From the panel’s perspective, the real need in Collier County is for action and implementation. This implementa- tion will require political will and leadership. In addition, the community at large will need to prepare for and adapt to the growth that is certain to occur in the county. Not all of the panel’s recommendations will be popular within the community at large, but the panel believes such recom- mendations are essential to the long-term viability and sustainability of Collier County. An integral part of this strategic vision will be developing a plan that ensures that affordable housing will be available to all of the county’s citizens. The Panel’s Assignment There is no question that Collier County has a housing affordability problem. The highly desirable area is home to millionaires and billionaires from around the world. The county also has a sizable second-home retirement com- munity. Like many affluent resort communities across the United States, those influences have created a develop- ment pattern that caters to select segments of the com- munity. The local economy is focused on retail, hospitality, services, and agriculture; however, high housing costs have priced out much of the workforce needed for the county to function. As a result, large numbers of employ- ees are commuting long distances to and from work, and employers are having an increasingly difficult time recruit- ing and retaining workers. Community leaders are seeking strategic recommendations on how to address the issues surrounding housing affordability in Collier County. In March 2015 and again in March 2016, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) held an affordable housing workshop. The BCC has also received several recommen- dations for programs and incentives to address housing affordability in Collier County, including establishing an affordable housing trust fund, providing even greater density incentives to support affordable housing develop- ment, and providing inclusionary zoning with pay-in-lieu-of options. The larger Collier County community has come Background and the Panel’s Assignment Although Collier County is the site of multimillion-dollar homes, it faces a significant housing affordability problem. Part of the challenge stems from a significant lack of supply in terms of housing type and level of affordability throughout the county. BETH SILVERMAN/ULIBETH SILVERMAN/ULIMARIAMICHELLE 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 884 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report8 Collier County circa 1930–1945.BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY together around this issue. In October 2015, the United Way sponsored a community-wide forum about affordable housing. The Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce’s Board of Directors has also established a work group to address this issue. Collier County has invited the ULI Advisory Services panel to help the county develop a community-wide approach to address housing affordability issues. Collier County has asked the panel to focus on the follow- ing key questions: ■■Why is it important for the county to have a balanced supply of housing, in terms of type, tenure, attainability, access, and distribution? ■■According to key stakeholders, including residents, what are the major obstacles to producing and sustaining affordable housing and workforce housing in Collier County? What can be done to mitigate those obstacles? ■■What are the stakeholders’ perceptions of affordable and workforce housing and of the existing tools and programs in place to support it? What are stakeholders’ recommendations for change? ■■How can public policy encourage the redevelopment of underused areas of the developed coastal area that includes affordable and workforce housing while ensur- ing that such housing will also be a component of new development in the urban and rural fringe areas. ■■What policies, strategies, and best practices have worked in places similar to Collier County that the panel would recommend that the county implement as it produces affordable housing units in the county’s urban and rural areas? Summary of the Panel’s Recommendations It was evident to the panel during its interviews with com- munity stakeholders; its review of comments compiled from a countywide, online, public survey; and its multiple study tours throughout Collier County that much work has already been done to address housing affordability chal- lenges. The panel hopes this report not only will serve as a blueprint for implementation, but also will help solidify an ongoing strategy to meet the county’s spectrum of housing affordability needs. With such goals in mind, the panel’s primary recommendations include the following: ■■Create a vision for the future of the community. ■■Recognize that housing affordability affects all segments of the community. ■■Increase the county’s supply of affordable housing (in- cluding rental housing) by adding to the current supply and by maintaining existing affordable units. ■■Adopt a smart code that distinguishes between the urban and rural parts of the county. ■■Reactivate the Affordable Housing Trust Fund—and use it. ■■Recognize that transportation is part of the housing affordability solution. Develop solutions that link housing with access to transportation options. ■■Establish transportation corridors to target mixed- income, multifamily housing development. ■■Consider establishing an enhanced minimum-wage ordinance. ■■Raise public awareness, educate, and communicate with the community about housing affordability. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 885 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County, Florida, January 29–February 3, 2017 9 Located in southwest Florida, Collier County is the largest county by land area in the state. The panel’s study area encompasses the entire county. However, key focus areas within the study include the city of Naples, the urban area, the rural lands, the Estates area, and the Immokalee area.ULI COLLIER COUNTY LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST END of the Florida peninsula, Collier County is the largest county by land area in the state. The county contains a variety of differ- ent communities including the city of Naples, inland Im- mokalee, and Marco Island, as well as four large nationally protected environmental areas. According to the 2010 census, the population breaks down to 65.7 percent non- Hispanic whites, 25.9 percent Latino, 6.6 percent African American, and 1.1 percent Asian. This diverse community, both geographically and ethnically, makes Collier County unique when compared with similar tourist destinations. However, this diversity has also led to housing issues throughout the county. Key Focus Areas Although the county was examined at large, the panel was asked to focus on the following key areas: ■■The city of Naples is an incorporated municipality bordering the Gulf of Mexico on the west and the unincorporated Collier County urban area on the east. Naples measures just 14 square miles and has some of the highest housing costs in the country. The limited number of commercial areas consists primarily of retail centers and financial institutions. ■■The urban area is located between the city of Naples and the rural lands (which run from the coast to about ten miles inland). Most of the housing, commercial, re- tail, and other services are located and permitted in this area. The urban area is characterized by large, planned, gated communities and by strip-mall developments. ■■The rural lands and the Estates area are located between the urban area and the more environmentally sensitive areas to the east. The Estates area is largely composed of platted, subdivided lots that range from Study Area and Surrounding Context 1 1 1 1 17 17 19 19219A 27 27 27 301 301 41 41 41 441 441 92 98 98 98 TollTol l 275 4 75 75 95 95 Biscayne NP Everglades NP Big CypressN PRES L. Istokpoga L. Kissimmee L. Okeechobee Ki s s i m m e e R .Peace R.St J o h n s R . FLORIDA BAY GULF OF MEXICO ATLANTIC OCEAN Charlotte Harbor Whitewater Bay BREVARD BROWARD CHARLOTTE COLLIER DADE DE SOTO GLADES HARDEE HENDRY HIGHLANDS HILLSBOROUGH INDIAN RIVER LEE MANATEE MARTIN MONROE OKEECHOBEE PALM BEACH PINELLAS POLK ST. LUCIE SARASOTA OSCEOLA Boynton BeachCape Coral Fort Myers Fort Pierce Margate Port Charlotte SarasotaBayshore Gardens Belle Glade Englewood Homestead Immokalee Key West Naples Port St. LucieSarasota Springs Tamiami Venice Fort Lauderdale Hollywood West Palm Beach Miami Immokalee area Collier County Florida Gulf o f Mex ico Urban area City of Naples Rural lands/Estates area 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 886 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report10 about one acre to more than 20 acres. During the Florida Land Grab of the 1950s, land parcels were divided and sold, creating the largest subdivision in the world with tens of thousands of home sites. Designated as privately owned, single-family lots, the Estates area’s commercial and retail opportunities are limited. West of the Estates are the rural lands, which are primarily farmland and environmentally sensitive areas that are designated for future cities and towns. The first town to be built in this area is Ave Maria. Once the project is built out, it will have up to 11,000 residences and 1.7 million square feet of retail, office, and business park uses spread across its 4,000 acres. Ave Maria is located at the intersection of Oil Well Road and Camp Keals Road in eastern Collier County. The main entrance—on Oil Well just west of Camp Keals—leads to the town center. ■■The Immokalee area is an agricultural center of the county. It is located in the northeast section of the county and is characterized by residential, commercial, and industrial development. A significant percentage of the affordable housing units available in Collier County are located in the Immokalee area. Habitat for Humanity development projects, such as Carson Lakes and Faith Landing, are built here, as are other affordable housing developments, including Hatcher’s Preserve. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 887 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County, Florida, January 29–February 3, 2017 11 Current Conditions AFFORDABLE HOUSING HAS MANY definitions and perceptions. Oftentimes, the multitude of definitions and opinions creates confusion when people are attempting to both study and solve issues of housing affordability in any given community or geography. Many definitions of afford- able housing refer to a percentage of area median income (AMI) as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Other definitions are careful to delineate between “affordable” and “workforce” housing— often defined as above or below 80 percent of AMI. Regard- less of the definition used in the affordable housing industry, for most people what represents “affordable” is more of a gut feeling that is influenced by their daily context. Throughout the study process, the panel consistently heard about Collier County’s housing affordability problem. However, the panel also perceived that there is a lack of clarity and agreement about the definition of affordable housing, which is causing poor communication, misunder- standings, and misaligned goals relative to the topic. Ac- cordingly, the panel recommends reframing the terminology of housing affordability around the concept of cost burden. Reframing the Idea of Housing Affordability HUD defines “cost burdened” as the following: Families who pay more than 30 percent of their gross income on housing costs, which includes mortgage principal and interest, property tax, and homeowners insurance payments. Other definitions add other housing costs, such as utilities, condominium or homeowners association fees, and ongo- ing maintenance or repairs, but the overall concept is that if a household is paying more than 30 percent of its gross income toward housing, then that is a concern, and from a policy standpoint, such cost may need to be addressed. The advantage of using the cost-burden terminology is that it does not put the focus on income alone; instead, it examines income as compared to housing cost. Therefore, it has a localized outcome that recognizes the different housing markets that exist nationally, regionally, and even within a single city or county. The 30 percent cost-burden threshold has been around for several decades. The idea was originally established by the 1937 National Housing Act, which also created the public housing program. At that time, eligibility to live in public housing was based on income limits, rather than maximum rents; a tenant’s income could not exceed five to six times the rent. Since the late 1930s, the 30 percent income limit for rental housing has been reevaluated and The Center for Urban Pedagogy, a New York City nonprofit organization dedicated to using the power of design and art to increase meaningful civic engagement, created the guidebook What Is Affordable Housing? with pictures and diagrams to help explain affordable housing issues in New York City.THE CENTER FOR URBAN PEDAGOGY9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 888 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing 12 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report Glossary of Housing Affordability Terms Affordable housing: Generally, a home or apartment occupied by a household that pays 30 percent or less of its gross income toward its mortgage or rent. The term is also widely used to refer to housing that is subsidized or rent-regulated and that is occupied by a household that is “low-income” (see later). The term used in this manner can be limiting—there are growing numbers of households that are within a range of incomes, that live in unsubsidized or unregulated market-rate housing, and that have a problem with “housing affordability” (see later). Area median income (AMI): The median household income of each metropolitan statistical area (MSA) adjusted for family size. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) publishes AMIs annually. AMI is used to determine the eligibility of applicants for most housing assistance programs. Extremely low-income housing: Per federal regulations, a household whose income does not exceed the higher of the federal poverty level or 30 percent of AMI (see earlier). Housing affordability: Refers to the ability or the lack thereof of a household to meet its housing expenses with a reasonable and sustainable share of its income, generally spending no more than 30 percent of gross income on housing costs, without regard to the household’s income or whether the household lives in subsidized, rent-regulated, or market-rate housing. Housing cost burden: Per the federal government, refers to a household having to pay more than 30 percent of its income for housing and possibly having difficulty affording other necessities such as food, clothing, transportation, and medical care. A housing cost burden is “severe” if housing costs consume more than 50 percent of a household’s income. Low-income housing: Per federal regulations, a household whose income does not exceed 80 percent of AMI (see earlier), adjusted for family size. Mixed-income housing: “Mixed-income” has a twofold meaning. In accordance with federal housing policy, HUD defines a mixed-income building as “comprised of housing units with differing levels of affordability, typically with some market-rate housing and some housing that is available to low-income occupants below market-rate.” In accordance with widely held housing industry practice, a mixed-income neighborhood consists of a variety of household incomes and opportunities for meaningful interaction, including parks, schools, and shopping. Moderate-income housing: Per federal regulations, households whose incomes are between 81 percent and 95 percent of AMI. The government may establish income ceilings higher or lower than 95 percent of AMI on the basis of an analysis of prevailing levels of construction costs, fair market rents, or unusually high or low family incomes. Naturally occurring affordable housing: Generally, housing that is “affordable” to “low-income” and “moderate-income” (see earlier) households that is not currently federally subsidized or rent-regulated. Preservation: Generally, providing the necessary physical improvements and financial capital to enable a currently occupied rental property to remain “affordable” (see earlier) and in decent condition for a sustained period of time. Preservation programs can also target owner-occupied housing, thereby providing assistance to homeowners that allows them to make improvements to their homes and to remain in them. Public housing: Rental housing owned and operated by local housing authorities that primarily serves “extremely low-income” (see earlier) households. Roughly 2.6 million people live in the nation’s 1.1 million public housing units. Very few public housing units have been built in recent years. Supportive housing: Generally, “affordable housing” (see earlier) combined with social services to assist vulnerable populations, such as the homeless, the disabled, the addicted, and the elderly. Very low-income housing: Per federal regulations, a household whose income does not exceed 50 percent of AMI (see earlier), adjusted for family size. Workforce housing: Generally, housing that is “affordable” (see earlier) to households earning between 60 and 120 percent of AMI (see earlier). In high-cost areas, incomes may be as high as 150 percent of AMI. Some definitions exclude owner-occupied housing. Source: ULI Terwilliger Center for Housing. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 889 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County, Florida, January 29–February 3, 2017 13 Table 1: Cost Burden in Collier County Burden for Three-Person Household Earning 30 to 150 Percent of Area Median Income Annual household income Percentage of area median income Percentage of income needed to afford median rent* Percentage of income needed to afford median-price home** Percentage of income needed to afford median-price condo*** $20,160 30 61 149 101 $29,600 50 41 101 69 $47,300 80 26 63 43 $59,125 100 21 51 35 $65,038 110 19 46 31 $70,950 120 17 42 29 $88,688 150 14 34 23 Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; The 2016 Collier County Economic, Demographic & Community Profile; the American Community Survey. *Median gross rent is $1,020 per month, as defined by the Shimberg Center in 2015. **Median sales price is $405,000, including mortgage and interest at a 20 percent downpayment for 30 years, plus estimated homeowner’s insurance, property taxes, and flood insurance. ***Median sales price for condominiums and townhouses is $257,000, including mortgage and interest at 20 percent downpayment for 30 years, plus estimated homeowner’s insurance, property taxes, and flood insurance. adjusted several times, ranging from 20 to 30 percent at any given time. In 1981, the housing burden rate for rentals was rees- tablished at 30 percent of gross annual income. Gradu- ally, this limit was extended to homeownership. In the mid-1990s, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would purchase mortgages only if their principal, interest, tax, and insur- ance (PITI) payments were 28 percent or less of the borrower’s gross income for a conventional loan and 29 percent for a loan insured by the Federal Housing Admin- istration. Since that time, almost all cost-burden limits for housing have been around 30 percent of a household’s gross income (https://www.census.gov/housing/census/ publications/who-can-afford.pdf). Used in conjunction with the 30 percent cost-burden threshold is severe cost burden, which includes house- holds that pay more than 50 percent of gross income toward housing costs. Those households are the most at risk—regardless of locality. Defining the Cost-Burden Problem In 2015, Collier County had a population of 343,802 and 140,131 households. The Shimberg Center at the Univer- sity of Florida estimates that of the 140,131 households, 58,685 (40 percent) were cost burdened in 2015—mean- ing they spent more than 30 percent of their gross income on housing. Of those 58,685 households, 29,342 were considered severely cost burdened —meaning they spent more than 50 percent of their gross income on housing. This finding means that two out of every five households in Collier County are cost burdened, with one in five severely cost burdened. During the study tour, the panel observed that in several communities multiple cars were parked in front of each home, thus supporting the theory that people are living together in order to afford the high cost of housing in the county.BETH SILVERMAN/ULI9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 890 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report14 However, the issue of cost burden may be larger than the numbers indicate. Not all of the households counted in the census are year-round residents, and most of those part- time households have incomes that support their residence in the county, which is a second residence. Therefore, it is likely that the actual percentages of cost burden are substantially higher among residents who live in the county year-round. To better understand the meaning of “cost burdened” in Collier County, the panel analyzed the correlation between household income and housing prices or rental rates. In 2016, the estimated AMI for Collier County was $65,700, and the average household size was 2.47. For a snapshot of the cost-burden issue, see table 1. Who Is Cost Burdened in Collier County? The people who are cost burdened in Collier County are crucial to the local economy. They provide key public safety, education, and health care services to the com- munity’s residents. In addition, they are responsible for the high-quality lifestyle that makes Collier County such a special place. Examples of workers in the cost-burdened category include the following: ■■Health care: Nurses, medical assistants, senior service providers ■■Education: Teachers and other school employees ■■Public safety: Police officers, firefighters ■■Service industry workers: Wait staff, hotel staff, retail and trade salespeople, golf course employees, land- scape maintenance workers ■■Entry-level or nonprofit professionals: Bank tellers, social workers, office managers, government employees Not every person in those fields will have difficulty finding housing that is affordable. For example, dual-income households have increased purchasing power. However, people receiving entry-level and median income rates in health care, public safety, and professional sectors are more likely to experience a cost burden than are the people holding executive, management, and supervisory positions. Also, single-income households, which can include one- to four-person households, are more likely to experience a cost burden or even a severe cost burden when living in Collier County. Table 2 provides a representative sample of employment positions in Collier County and what people in such posi- tions can afford in the local market. Across the board, the ability to afford houses priced at the median sales price from 2015 was low. The ability to afford rental units at the median gross rent (plus utilities) was more reasonable, with affordability attainable for some of the people holding professional positions. During the panel process, the panel heard many stories regarding how difficult it is to recruit service industry work- ers, particularly those who work at the resorts and hotels, including housekeepers, front-desk staff members, and golf course attendants. The panel’s analysis of cost burden for those jobs indicates that there is substantial cost burden for such workers unless they share living space or commute long distances. One critical challenge for Collier County businesses is the ability to recruit entry-level professionals. Mid- and upper-level professionals in public safety, education, government, and health care can afford a wider range of housing. However, such is not the case for entry-level professionals, who often end up living far away from their source of employment (particularly in Lee County). Having employees who reside outside of Collier County and who commute long distances for work often means a high level of attrition for businesses. Furthermore, when people who work in the county are commuting to adjoining municipali- ties to live, the county bears the costs of the roads without the benefit of receiving the tax revenue. Collectively, the employment sectors that are the most at risk to incur a significant cost burden represent more than 50 percent of the local labor force. But beyond that, the sectors represent the core of county, public safety, 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 891 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County, Florida, January 29–February 3, 2017 15 and education services, and those services support the background of the lifestyle, health, and overall vitality of the county. Other important groups of residents with substantial needs include low- to moderate-income seniors, both those who live independently and those who require services; residents who require mental health treatment and various other services; and very low-wage earners. Those resi- dents face virtually no supply of housing or no continuity in being provided social and health services. Most experience long wait lists at the few available housing sites, and many have to be relocated outside of the county to areas with a greater concentration of housing and services. Going Beyond the Root of the Problem If one is to understand the full spectrum of housing afford- ability, it is critical to examine the aspects of the challenge that go beyond housing costs. Those additional crucial factors include added housing costs, housing supply and availability, transportation costs, and future growth implications for the county, and such factors are examined in further detail in the following sections. Added Housing Costs In Collier County, housing affordability for homeowners (and especially first-time homeowners) means more than Table 2: Estimated Cost Burden for Households Headed by Selected Wage Earners Profession Annual wage range (entry to median) Housing cost as percentage of gross income Median gross rent 2015 median home sale price Health care Registered nurse $47,000–$65,000 24%38% Medical assistant $30,000–$35,000 41%68% Emergency technician $28,000–$36,000 42%68% Education Teacher $44,000–$59,000 28%50% Teaching assistant $22,000–$24,000 45%101% Public safety Firefighter $39,000–$57,000 29%43% Patrol officer $47,000–$59,000 26%41% Service workers Maid and housekeeping $18,000–$22,000 66%109% Massage therapist $26,000–$55,000 37%44% Concierge $25,000–$31,000 48%78% Entry-level/midtier professional Human resources specialist $35,000–$55,000 31%45% Dental assistant $33,000–$43,000 36%57% Administrative assistant $22,000–$33,000 49%73% Housing cost accounts for less than 30 percent of gross income (not cost burdened) Housing cost accounts for 30 to 50 percent of gross income (cost burdened) Housing cost accounts for 50 percent or more of gross income (severely cost burdened) Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; The 2016 Collier County Economic, Demographic & Community Profile; the American Community Survey. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 892 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report16 just taking into consideration PITI. Utilities and home- ownership association fees also come into play when determining housing affordability and cost burden. After interviewing several area stakeholders, the panel believes that the percentage of cost-burdened Collier County households is even higher than outlined in the earlier section. One reason the percentage is higher is that many households cannot afford a 20 percent downpayment, which means they must pay private mortgage insurance, thus reducing the amount of home they can afford. In addition, almost all areas of Collier County require flood insurance, which adds a substantial monthly cost on top of all the costs just described. Moreover, Collier County has one of the highest homeowner insurance rates in Florida. Availability When one considers cost burden and affordability, one must also consider availability and quality. Housing units at the bottom of the cost spectrum often are made up of a high percentage of units with quality and maintenance concerns. If one considers the total number of units existing at differ- ent rental and sale prices, availability of those units at any given time can significantly constrain access to housing that is affordable. The panel took a “snapshot” of units available on the market using readily accessible, publicly available portals to find housing (Zillow.com, Trulia.com, Apartments.com). Using the income bands of 25 different employment categories, the panel looked to see how many units were available below the cost-burden threshold of 30 percent (table 3). The analysis provided several interesting results. Although a reasonable number of condominiums were available (but no additional homeowners association fees were considered in the analysis, which may have resulted in fewer options), very few single-family homes were for sale, and there were very limited rental options, which indicated a particularly constrained rental market. For any worker or single-income household with income between 80 and 100 percent of AMI, options were extremely limited, to say nothing of those households making less than 80 percent, which represent a substantial percentage of workers who are cost burdened. Transportation Crucial to the cost-burden conversation is the combination of housing cost and transportation cost. According to data from the Center for Neighborhood Technology, households at 90 to 100 percent of area median income can incur housing and transportation costs of 75 percent of their gross income. That figure is 61 percent for households between 100 and 120 percent of AMI. Furthermore, de- pending on the distance from employment and other activity centers, transportation costs for Collier County households can fluctuate wildly. In some cases, households may incur 5 to 10 percent more in transportation costs if they are located farther away from employment and other services. Growth Implications In a county expected to grow significantly in population by 2040, what does that finding mean for the future? The county is expected to add 58,000 households over the next 23 years. If the local issue of cost burden is not addressed, then—at a minimum—11,000 more households will experience severe cost burden (above 50 percent) than do households today. Given ever-rising real estate values and a seemingly bottomless demand for higher-end homes and rentals, the likelihood of both the number and percentage of cost-burdened households increasing is high. Table 3: Collier County Housing Market Snapshot Units Affordable for Households Earning Less Than 100 Percent of Area Median Income Housing type Number of units Single-family, for-sale homes 125* Condominiums 65–250** Single-family rentals 0 Multifamily rentals 23 Sources: Zillow.com; Apartments.com. *3.8 percent of inventory on multiple listing services **Priced at $120,000 to $175,000 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 893 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County, Florida, January 29–February 3, 2017 17 THE PANEL TOURED KEY AREAS of Collier to get a comprehensive look at the county. The panel also inter- viewed more than 90 stakeholders during this process, reaching out to residents, elected and appointed officials, business leaders, real estate developers, and nonprofit leaders. From the study tours and interviews, the panel did not hear a strong consensus regarding the path forward for Collier County. However, several common themes and community values were frequently raised. Those traits are both existing and aspirational: some have already been im- plemented across the county (such as the Blue Zone and the commitment to beautification), while others are indica- tive of recent concerns and current shortcomings (such as economic development and traffic). The common themes and community values include the following: ■■Maintaining Collier County’s reputation as a premiere tourist destination ■■Growing and maintaining a strong real estate base and retaining steady values ■■Retaining a safe and healthy community ■■Enhancing and sustaining a visually attractive and aes- thetically pleasing community with character ■■Ensuring an efficient transportation system ■■Diversifying the local economy What the Future of Collier County Looks Like Collier County’s current debate on housing affordability is not a new one. The panel heard repeatedly about the community’s reservations regarding another discussion on housing affordability—the topic has been widely discussed for many years—with the Great Recession and housing downturn halting past efforts. These on-again, off-again discussions reflect the cyclical nature of this issue and the related concern it raises. Today, with new interests and partners realigning around the housing issue, a variety of pathways and solutions can be explored. Considering the overall values raised by community members, the panel believes two key scenarios Vision: What Do You Want to Be When You Grow Up? Collier County is home to pristine beaches and enviable weather; it also boasts a mix of urban, suburban, and rural land use patterns. Nonetheless, the panel believes that Collier County does not have a vision for what it wants to be in the future. (Left to right: Ave Maria, Naples’s iconic beaches, and the panel’s public reception.)BETH SILVERMAN/ULIBETH SILVERMAN/ULIBETH SILVERMAN/ULI9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 894 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report18 face Collier County: a future with action and a future with- out action. A wide range of options and interventions exists within this dichotomy and will produce varying outputs and results. The scenarios presented next are intended to illustrate specific certainties that the panel believes will be inevitable under current conditions. The Future of Collier County without Action on Housing If county leaders choose not to respond to the current housing needs, it is likely that the current market condi- tions and trends will continue to advance and evolve. Local employers will continue to have difficulty hiring and retaining key employees in the county, which will create a “brain drain” out of the community and into neighboring jurisdictions, such as Lee County. Not only does this market condition place a strain on employers’ ability to hire and retain high-quality talent, but also it means more workers and middle-class laborers will be commuting greater distances, thereby increasing transportation con- gestion and mitigating quality of life and civic engagement. In addition, Collier County’s local economy will lose tax revenue as incomes earned in the county leave to neigh- boring jurisdictions because out-of-county employees tend to spend a greater portion of their income by going to gro- cery stores, restaurants, and dry cleaners in their residen- tial communities. Therefore, Collier County will continue to sustain the burden of influx infrastructure strain, while receiving no tax revenue from it. Those conditions create an intensified landscape of competition between counties, instead of mutual collaboration for the betterment of the region. With no action on housing, Collier County will be forced to create reactionary policy and will have more dif- ficulty when guiding future growth of the county. The Future of Collier County with Action on Housing Conversely, if the county takes appropriate action and intervenes, the aforementioned trends could be redirected in a more financially and economically sustainable direc- tion for the county. Although the panel report will identify the specific strategies for all residents of Collier County, having a proactive policy right now will redirect the current housing and demographic trends and will create positive benefits for the county. The local economy will benefit by retaining a self- sustaining employment base in which people can work in Collier County’s Sheriff’s Department, public schools, hotels, and restaurants and can live in the county. The benefits include an increase in tax revenue generated by the in-county residents, a lesser strain on existing transportation infrastructure, and an increase in the qual- ity of life for this vital segment of the community. Also, employers will have a better chance of attracting and retaining talented and skilled workers in the county, which will improve the overall quality of life in the county and will build a stronger middle class. With the growing aging demographic, a proactive policy will make the county a more hospitable place for longtime residents to age in place and to receive health care. Also, keeping this older demographic in the county will generate county tax revenue from the group’s use of local pharma- cies, grocery stores, and specialized medical services. By taking a proactive approach toward addressing housing, Collier County can develop a vision that expands on and enhances the existing unique qualities of the county. Why a Vision Is Important The panel believes that the overall priorities of the county lack a collective vision; without such a vision, aligning and prioritizing government processes and policies will be challenging. Collier County is still facing near-certain changes—with or without a unifying vision—particularly regarding the incoming population and real estate growth. If one considers the expectations around building growth and residential influx, the problems facing the county today will be amplified in the coming years, thus exacerbating the current pain points (traffic, workforce, costs). In short, the status quo in Collier County will work only for a limited number of people and for a limited amount of time. The 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 895 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County, Florida, January 29–February 3, 2017 19 As part of the study, the panel met with community stakeholders, including residents, business and community leaders, and other representatives from the larger Collier County community.BETH SILVERMAN/ULIpanel feels strongly that without proactive management, the anticipated growth will erode the very qualities that attracted people to the county in the first place. The panel recommends that the creation of a vision for Collier County should come from the county itself, as a self-directed exercise, and should be inclusive of all stake- holders. However, to ensure the exercise and the results have the desired effect, the panel provides the following elements that the county should include in its vision: ■■Provide key considerations around quality of life for all residents, as well as how to improve and maintain it. ■■Provide a range of housing options that are accessible to the full spectrum of consumers. Housing options should be economically and geographically diverse throughout the county, as well as having a range in sizes and types such as single-family homes and rental apartments. Additional key factors to consider when providing hous- ing options include the reasonable proximity to jobs, schools, amenities, and transportation choices. There should also be an inclusive mix of income levels in dif- ferent neighborhoods. ■■Grow and sustain a thriving economy that includes qualities such as livable wages, job opportunities that provide pathways to wealth creation and upward mobil- ity, diversified industries, and a diversified workforce. ■■Provide accessible, multimodal transportation options that safely and efficiently connect all residents to jobs, amenities, and services. In addition, provide clear directives to governing entities to help align policies and processes with the envisioned future for the county. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 896 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report20 THE PANEL IS IMPRESSED WITH the planning and study that has already been completed regarding housing affordability in Collier County. The panel’s recommenda- tions reflect and endorse much of the work that has al- ready been completed. However, what is abundantly clear to the panel is that action and implementation are crucial to creating sustainable solutions. Implementation of the panel’s recommendations will require sincere action, tremendous political will, and strong leadership. For addi- tional reference, the panel has created a proposed imple- mentation schedule to provide a blueprint for how to move forward on the recommendations described throughout this section in the short, medium, and long term. (See ap- pendix A.) The panel’s major recommendations are organized around the following six core strategies to address housing afford- ability: ■■Increase supply; ■■Maintain supply; ■■Regulate and govern; ■■Enhance transportation options; ■■Enhance wages; and ■■Engage, market, and educate. Increase Supply How can Collier County meet its current and future hous- ing needs? One approach to achieving the goals is by adding housing that is affordable to households with a wide range of income levels. There is good news to share: several strategies include simply making improvements to existing procedures and vehicles rather than creating new programs entirely. There is no need to reinvent the wheel when existing structures already support the development of more affordable housing. The Housing Trust Fund The housing trust fund (HTF) is an example of a national best practice that Collier County currently has at its disposal but does not use. More than 700 HTFs exist nationwide, and they are often a critical element of a jurisdiction’s overall housing policy. Collier County’s HTF should be sustainable and predict- able, given the long planning process involved in housing development. The county should keep in mind that what can make an HTF challenging is finding viable revenue sources. Other jurisdictions have funded their trust funds through sales taxes, real estate transfer taxes, linkage fees as part of the zoning ordinance, inclusionary zoning in-lieu fees, condominium conversion fees or demolition fees, and hotel and motel taxes. The best and most common revenue source for a county HTF is a document record- ing fee, which is a fee paid upon filing various types of official documents with a state or local government. This fee is one of the few revenue sources that most counties can commit to, and the panel recommends Collier County consider this approach. Development Incentives The county’s existing developer incentives have clearly failed to transform existing development patterns and allow for greater production of housing that is affordable to a broad range of low- to moderate-income households. Any developer incentives need to be reasonable, be flex- ible, and allow for creative partnerships to produce new, affordable homes. The panel strongly recommends that the county put increased emphasis on multifamily rental Implementation 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 897 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County, Florida, January 29–February 3, 2017 21 housing as a means of addressing its affordability housing situation. Multifamily rental housing is the most cost- effective way to provide housing that is affordable to the average working person. The panel recommends that existing density bonuses be reassessed to allow for and provide incentives for more mixed-use development and greater efficiency of land use throughout the county. This recommendation will be dis- cussed in greater detail later in this report, but the current density bonus program needs revision to allow for higher densities to ensure that additional mixed-income, mixed- tenure (rental as well as homeownership) developments are financially feasible. Examples of this type of increased den- sity include Bayfront and Naples Square, at more than 20 to 30 units per acre rather than the average 2.5 units per acre in other residential communities. The density can also be flexible to allow for complementary adjacent uses and to reflect different preferences in the urban and rural areas. Impact fees are an often-cited source of frustration to those creating both market rate and affordable housing products. Not only are high impact fees an impediment to new construction of affordable housing, but also they can be erratic and can be an ineffective way to raise revenue. During periods of high growth, they can produce lots of cash, but during slow periods of growth, the revenue provided by such fees falls, sometimes precipitously. County Housing Trust Fund Dedicated Revenue Sources Revenue Source County Trust Funds Document recording fee Arlington County, Virginia; 9 New Jersey counties; 54 Pennsylvania counties; 39 Washington counties Property tax Kalamazoo County, Michigan; King County, Washington Inclusionary zoning in-lieu fees Sonoma County, California Tax increment funds Alameda County, California Delinquent property tax penalties and interest (land bank) Toledo/Lucas County, Ohio Real estate transfer tax Columbus/Franklin County, Ohio Hotel/motel tax Columbus/Franklin County, Ohio Developer impact fees/proffers Fairfax County, Virginia Food and beverage tax Dade County, Florida Sale of foreclosed properties Traverse City, Michigan (now expired) Sales/use tax Summit County, Colorado General funds North Valley/Chico, Alameda County, Los Angeles County, Santa Barbara County, Sonoma County, and San Luis Obispo County, California; Tompkins County, New York (with Ithaca and Cornell University); Arlington County, Virginia; 24 counties in Iowa Source: Housing Trust Fund Project, Center for Community Change, 2016. An example of existing density that allows for a mix of uses in downtown Naples along Fifth Avenue.CHARLIE ANZMAN9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 898 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report22 Inclusive Housing Strategy: Tysons Corner, Virginia A sprawling edge city begins to remake itself as a more walkable, sustainable place, with transit-accessible, mixed- income housing at its core. Fairfax County, Virginia, home to 1.1 million residents, is the most populous county in the Washington, D.C., region and is one of the most prosperous in the nation, with a median household income of nearly $113,000. The county’s development since the 1960s and its image today have been shaped by the growth of Tysons Corner, a roughly 1,700-acre area originally marked by the intersection of state Routes 7 and 123. For a half century, “Tysons” has epitomized the commercially successful suburban employment center and retail destination, which is dominated by large office buildings occupied by white-collar companies and high-end shopping malls. Tyson’s enormous economic success—it was the nation’s 12th- largest central business district as recently as 2014—came over time with substantial costs in the form of traffic congestion and sprawling development. The number of homes and apartments fell far behind the number of jobs; investment fell short of needs in cultural amenities, green space, and schools; and transit options were limited. Tysons’s very economic model came into question. For local business leaders and elected officials, the future of Tysons depends on whether it can reinvent itself as a more complete community. Under the rubric of a “Transforming Tysons” plan, Fairfax County has established goals to be met by 2050: increase the number of Tysons residents to 100,000 (from 19,000 today), double the number of jobs to 200,000, and ensure that at least three-quarters of the new growth is within a half-mile of Metro stations (four stations opened in the Tysons area in 2014). Fairfax County also intends Tysons to be a mixed-income residential community—a place where construction and service workers, teachers, and others in need of more affordable housing can afford to live. To achieve that goal, the county has ambitiously expanded a longstanding county policy that has been a national model for promoting inclusionary housing development. Equity Strategies, Results, and Challenges Since 1990, the county has generally required residential development projects (excluding high rises) to set aside a share of units (generally 5 to 12.5 percent) for households earning 50 to 70 percent of the Washington metro area median income. Developments receive a density bonus— permission to increase the size of the project—to help mitigate the economic cost of delivering the below-market units. This affordable dwelling unit (ADU) program has generated more than 2,500 affordable units to date, with about an equal mix of rental and for-sale housing. Research indicates that Fairfax County ADU homes and apartments are overwhelmingly located in low-poverty neighborhoods and in areas with schools comparable to those in places without ADUs. Research also indicates that the program has not deterred developers from delivering profitable projects in the county. By state law, the ADU program does not apply to high-rise buildings— precisely the type of development the county wants to see near transit in the Tysons transformation plan. Recognizing that this exemption would undermine the opportunity to provide a wider range of housing choice in Tysons, the county expanded its inclusionary policy so it could be applied more effectively in the area. As a result, 20 percent of all high-rise units in Tysons must meet affordability requirements, albeit at higher income levels than the ADU program. Though low- and mid-rise buildings are still covered by the ADU program, their developers are encouraged to meet the higher standard as well. As of June 2016, 356 affordable units had been delivered in Tysons. Future development up to allowed densities could result in the creation of as many as 4,200 units in the area. Tysons will also generate funding to support affordable housing through payments that office, retail, and hotel development projects must make in return for receiving county approval to build at greater densities—generally either a one-time contribution of $3 per square foot or annual payment of $0.25 per square foot for 16 years. As of 2014, this policy was projected to generate more than $64 million for investment in affordable housing in Tysons through a trust fund. The capacity of Tysons to become a more equitable community is interlinked with its evolution into a denser, more walkable area and with its careful use of inclusionary development practices and incentives as that evolution occurs. Researcher Christopher Leinberger, whose work has suggested that more-walkable urban places can advance an array of social-equity outcomes as well as deliver superior economic returns, has noted of Tysons: “Many of the neighborhood associations surrounding [Tysons] became supporters of increased density because of the promised walkable urban future. NIMBYs (not in my backyard) became YIMBYs (yes in my backyard).” The Tysons inclusionary housing policy is not perfect. In exchange for requiring a higher percentage of inclusionary units than under the existing ADU program, the county raised the income levels of eligible families, reflecting the realities of development feasibility. To serve families with very low incomes, the county will need to offer development subsidies through the trust fund and other sources. And while the Tysons policy appears to be working well for rental apartment buildings, it has proven more problematic for for-sale projects. In November 2016, the Washington Post reported: “County leaders are considering relaxing the 20 percent expectation for high-rise condominium projects, after developers complained that it will make it harder to secure financing for their typically smaller buildings.” The county worked with the development community to revise the policy to reflect market conditions that had changed since it was put in place, and the first condominium project was recently approved. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 899 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County, Florida, January 29–February 3, 2017 23 Case Study: Palm Beach County Workforce Housing Program Palm Beach County’s Workforce Housing Program requires all new developments of more than ten units to provide units for households earning 60 to 120 percent of AMI in exchange for additional density allowances on a sliding scale. Developers have the flexibility to meet the affordable housing requirements by paying an in-lieu fee, building units off site, or purchasing and deed restricting market-rate units. To date, more than 1,400 affordable or workforce units have been approved as part of 36 developments. In addition, nearly $900,000 of in-lieu fees have been collected from three developments. The program was established in 2004 but gained traction in the market only after 2009, when the county made substantial revisions as a result of recommendations by the real estate industry, including homebuilders and realtors. An evaluation of the program found that the county’s incentives fully offset the cost or lost profit incurred by developers in providing the affordable and workforce units. The high fee structure, however, reflects the limited sources available to Collier County to support develop- ment of all types. The panel recommends a review of the impact fee structure to consider how to better incentivize developers to build a spectrum of housing types and sizes. Further, the panel recommends that the current impact fee deferral program cover all types of income-restricted hous- ing, regardless of whether it is single-family, multifamily, senior, or special needs housing. National Best Practices In addition to enhancing existing tools to create affordable housing, the panel recommends tailoring several national best practices to Collier County’s unique characteristics to supplement the county’s ability to meet current and future housing needs. Inclusionary zoning (IZ) is an approach to add to the supply of affordable housing options by linking the zones to the creation of market-rate housing. IZ programs have been used across the country since 1972 and vary greatly in terms of their structure and requirements. Given the under- use of the existing density bonus program, the county needs to consider a more proactive approach to increase the supply of housing options for all of its residents. Although IZ programs may not produce a high volume of units, such programs have the unique ability to provide the choice to residents to live in communities with better access to transit, jobs, and schools. IZ programs can be flexible in implementation to fit the needs of the county and to fit different project types. For example, the county may want to allow for the provision of inclusionary units to be produced off site; the payment for units through a fee-in-lieu arrangement to the HTF; or the creation of partnerships between for-profit and nonprofit developers so the units best fit the respective business models and expertise. Mitigating the cost of land—something that is fixed, limited, and a significant challenge to all developers in Collier County—can be addressed through vehicles such as a community land trust (CLT) and through a program to designate public land for public goods, such as affordable housing. CLTs are nonprofit, community-based organiza- tions whose mission is to provide affordable housing in perpetuity by owning land and leasing it to those who live in houses built on that land. Although CLTs may have a broad mission, their primary role is providing successful homeownership opportunities for generations of lower- income families. A related approach to the CLT is to consider a ground lease structure. This approach both dramatically reduces the cost of the land to the developer and helps ensure long-term affordability for the housing built on that site. The city of Naples has used this approach in at least two instances at the Jasmine Cay and Carver Apartments. The panel also recommends that the county immediately undertake a review of the current land inventory to identify parcels that may be available for housing development 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 900 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report24 opportunities. This review can be accomplished using a cross-agency strategy, and the county should find ways to engage with community stakeholders to identify possible sites and building intensities. A related part of using public land for public good is to colocate affordable housing with the renovation or creation of new public facilities. One suc- cessful example includes building affordable housing for seniors adjacent to a new public library at a development called the Bonifant in Silver Spring, Maryland. It is not the sole responsibility of either the government or the private sector to provide for the housing needs of all residents in Collier County. The best way to produce housing effectively that meets a broad, rather than narrow, range of housing needs is through effective public/private partnerships. Elements of effective public/private partner- ships include creating a shared vision, clear roles and responsibilities, consistent and coordinated leadership, and frequent communication. Repurposing Vacant and Underused Retail Space Another unique opportunity for Collier County to add to its supply of affordable housing is to take advantage of existing vacant and underused retail sites along major transportation corridors through a conversion to multi- family residential buildings. This effort would accomplish several goals simultaneously, including these: ■■Returning underperforming buildings to the tax rolls and generating revenue for the county, and ■■Providing an option for rental apartments along existing transportation corridors without the need to create new infrastructure. The county’s regular rental housing surveys have found va- cancy rates in multifamily rental buildings to be extremely low, at 1 to 2 percent, thus indicating a significant unmet demand for rental housing options. Maintain Supply One of the most cost-effective and efficient means of providing affordable housing is to maintain the existing supply. The National Housing Trust finds that renovating an existing property can be one-third to one-half as expensive as new construction. Renovating older properties does not require new land for development, takes advantage of existing infrastructure, and reduces construction waste. Collier County has an existing renovation code available to developers looking to refurbish existing properties, and the county should encourage its use through incentives mentioned previously, such as through expedited permit- ting and inspections and by reducing or deferring the associated fees. The county can identify opportunities proactively by track- ing properties with expiring affordability covenants (using resources such as the National Housing Preservation database) to ensure that existing rental properties remain affordable for the long term. The county should also explore implementing a right of first refusal to purchase The Bonifant in downtown Silver Spring, Maryland, is a transit- oriented development for lower-income seniors that is adjacent to the new Silver Spring library and within walking distance of transit and bus lines. The panel strongly recommends that the county take an inventory of vacant and underused commercial parcels that might be available for housing development. DAN REEDBETH SILVERMAN/ULI9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 901 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County, Florida, January 29–February 3, 2017 25 (either by the county or by a nonprofit partner) expiring use properties so the county can prevent the loss of any housing that is affordable to low- and moderate-income residents and that might result in displacement. Regulate and Govern After a review of existing regulations, interviews with stakeholders, and an understanding of current market conditions, the panel determined that the county faces inherent difficulties, unnecessary costs, and a lack of predictability to developing affordable housing projects. Al- though internal and external market forces play a large role in the success of the projects, the county could reduce approval times and costs while increasing predictability in the review process in three steps: ■■Update regulations to encourage affordable housing development in desired areas. ■■Permit higher densities in urban areas for projects with affordable housing by-right. ■■Revise the governance structure, and streamline the process. Review and Revise the Land Development Code Good codes are the foundation on which great communi- ties are built. When done well, codes make it easier for a community to implement its vision. However, the current Land Development Code (LDC) does not consistently sup- port and encourage growth in already existing urbanized areas of the county (those areas generally west of Collier Parkway). Many of the LDC’s ordinances are geared toward large-scale, planned-unit developments (PUDs) on greenfield sites. Conversely, smaller-scale redevelopment and infill sites in already developed areas of the county are challeng- ing to consolidate, may need to address adjacent uses and neighborhood concerns, and often require additional Inclusive Housing Strategies: Pasadena, California Pasadena (population 140,000), a southern California city renowned for its high quality of life, faces formidable challenges in providing affordable housing in an expensive market with high land costs and a limited amount of developable property. Sustained price appreciation has made housing unaffordable—even for households earning more than $100,000 annually. Through an array of incentive-based programs, including an inclusionary housing ordinance (IHO) and a density bonus, the city has supported development of more than 5,000 transit- oriented housing units since 2001, including 1,370 units of affordable and workforce housing. The Housing Incentives Fee Program, adopted by the city council in 2004, incentivizes production of affordable housing by providing developers with significant reductions in impact fees, building permit fees, construction taxes, and transportation fees. The city adopted its density bonus ordinance in 2006, which provides developers of housing projects that include affordable units with a bonus in the number of units that may be constructed on a site. Pasadena has emphasized links to transit by clustering mixed-use projects near light-rail stations, major corridors, and employment areas. Because of efforts to encourage transit-oriented development, the majority of residential and mixed-use projects built during the 2000s were located within a half mile of a transit stop or employment center. More than 50 percent of the affordable units produced under the IHO were developed along such major corridors. Two large IHO projects have been developed close to Gold Line light-rail stations, and a third project (totaling 212 units) is forthcoming. In addition, Pasadena’s efforts to promote affordable housing have extended beyond simple subsidies to encompass community outreach. According to William Huang, the city’s housing director, “The success of affordable housing is rarely only financial. Even if funding is secured, gaining public acceptance is a prerequisite.” 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 902 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report26 The Bayfront Naples development is an example of successful and appropriate density and mixed-use development in Collier County. SUE ELIAS density to make them financially feasible. Because of the way that current codes are written, PUDs generally have been more predictable to entitle and have fewer barriers to obtaining funding. Although difficult to develop, projects in the urban areas of the county can yield great benefits by placing residents near existing transit, employment, shopping, and other daily needs and by reducing strain on existing infrastructure. Even though Collier County routinely amends portions of its LDC, consideration should be given to initiating an effort to overhaul the code by implementing a Smart Code, also known as a Unified Development Code (https:// transect.org/codes.html) to encourage the development of affordable and mixed-income housing. Smart Codes are designed to differentiate between more urban and rural conditions that reflect the different characteristics and priorities found across the county. Unique standards for the different tiers of density encourage a more diverse development pattern while encouraging affordable housing in a mixed-use, pedestrian-scaled environment. In a Smart Code framework, all regulatory standards are combined into one streamlined document to prioritize environmental protection, high-quality design, and compatibility with existing patterns of development. The focus of the urban tier should be to stimulate and accommodate infill growth while encouraging affordable housing. This focus can be accomplished through residential density bonuses, mixed-use height bonuses, reductions from parking requirements, modifications to buffer and landscape requirements, and other incentive- based measures. In addition to the county’s creating a Smart Code, several LDC revisions could make it easier to develop affordable dwelling units in urban portions of the county: ■■Reduce parking standards: Consider establishing standard percentage reductions in minimum parking requirements for urban portions of the county where there are more transit services, where opportunities exist to walk to shopping and employment, and where shared parking opportunities exist to promote efficient site design and reduce development costs. Typical parking standards for multifamily housing in more urban areas range from 1 to 1.5 spaces per unit. ■■Create well-defined compatibility, building mass- ing, and buffer standards: The panel heard about several recent development applications in which com- patibility with adjacent existing communities has fueled distrust between existing neighborhoods and developers. The conflicts are in part due to a lack of clear expecta- tions as to what is required by the LDC. For infill develop- ment projects that include affordable housing, this lack of certainty causes an unnecessary burden on developers while at the same time residents have concerns about property values and existing views. As an example, Okla- homa City created a development guide (http://planokc. org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/06/planokc_Chap2_ DevelopmentGuide.pdf; page 71) that focuses on urban design solutions for compatibility related to building scale and site design. It provides clear expectations to both the existing neighborhoods and developers as to what should be expected when designing the site and massing of buildings. Those types of standards can also help set community expectations if it is determined that redevel- opment of nonfunctioning golf courses is appropriate. ■■Permit guest houses as accessory dwelling rental units: There are a number of existing guest homes, pre- dominantly in the eastern portions of the county and the Estates, that—if permitted to be used as rentals—could have an immediate effect on the supply of affordable 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 903 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County, Florida, January 29–February 3, 2017 27 rental housing. Additional rental income could also have a positive effect for families who own the units. Although effects on transportation, schools, and other facilities should be considered, these units have already been constructed, are occupied, or have been occupied in the past. Making them legal to lease allows code enforce- ment to better regulate the units while limiting exploita- tion of renters. ■■Encourage smart-site infrastructure: According to a number of interviewees, the panel heard that several onerous land development requirements add unneces- sary expense to overall project costs. The requirements further exacerbate challenges to providing affordable units in projects. Examples include requiring sidewalks on both sides of the street, right-of-way commitments, utility spacing, and other requirements that are more burdensome to on-site development than are the neigh- boring Lee County standards. Target Certain Activity Centers for Significantly Higher Density with the Provision of Mixed- Income Housing Collier County currently has high concentrations of housing in particularly low-density areas of the county. A healthy mixed-income community has higher densities to promote a walkable environment but not high concentrations of low-income housing in one place. Mixed-income com- munities are a market-based approach and include diverse housing for people with a range of income levels. Mixed- income communities are healthier than homogenous, low-income neighborhoods because they prevent blight, support upward mobility, and help retain property values. The panel recommends the following two approaches to achieve these goals: ■■Strengthen the Affordable Housing Density Bonus (AHDB) Program: The current maximum residential densities permitted in Collier County are generally 16 units per acre within specified activity centers of the county when affordable housing is provided (excluding transfer of development rights opportunities). Although maximum buildout of density is frequently not achieved in large PUDs, smaller infill sites in the western urban portions of the county need additional density to be financially viable. This need was confirmed during the panel’s interviews where developers consistently stated that to provide affordable housing on site, the number of residential units allowed per acre should be significantly increased. For example, 30 units per acre may be a more realistic maximum density to properly incentivize market-rate developers to provide affordable housing. In addition, to properly capitalize on infrastructure, mini- mum densities should be provided for residential units per acre. Bonus density is even more important given the approximately 9 percent of unentitled land. Finally, the AHDB program is logistically challenging for market-rate builders to administer. ■■Identify strategic opportunity sites: As illustrated in the map above, the panel also recommends that the county consider further density increases in limited urban areas of the county such as the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA where high-quality transit facilities along transportation corridors are provided. Streamline the Project Approval Process when Affordable Housing Is Provided Land use decisions are largely decided by the five-member Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) by a super- majority rule. According to developers, land use attorneys, planners, and other land development professionals, a great deal of uncertainty exists in knowing whether or not a zoning application will be approved because it takes only two board members to veto a project. For projects that in- clude affordable housing, this lack of certainty is a key im- pediment to project viability. In addition, although all board members are charged at looking at the county, no at-large board members are specifically charged with overseeing regional and countywide issues. The panel recommends considering adding two at-large board members, making the new BoCC a seven-member board, and reducing the super-majority to a five-out-of-seven approval process. If adding new BoCC members is not feasible, the panel recommends reducing the super-majority requirement to a 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 904 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report28 simple-majority, which will provide greater certainty. For ex- ample, Hillsborough County, Florida, has a seven-member board with three at-large board members. Although there is an expedited construction permit review process, the panel recommends this process be expanded to include comprehensive plan amendments and zon- ing approvals. Comprehensive plan amendments could also be reviewed concurrently with a zoning change for projects that include affordable housing. This change to the project approval process could also be extended to include a concurrent processing of a zoning application and site plan. Consideration should be given to increasing the number of administrative approvals that do not require BoCC approval that will streamline the process and provide greater certainty. Although not strictly related to incentivizing affordable housing, Fairfax County, Virginia, provides concurrent processing (see www.fcrevit.org/publications/download/ DevelopmentInCRD_CRA.pdf) for comprehensive plan amendments and zoning applications as an incentive for redevelopment of older areas of the county. Enhance Transportation Options Collier County, the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organiza- tion (MPO), and the city of Naples have done extensive public outreach and planning for alternative mobility op- tions in the county. From the Collier County Master Mobility Plan (2012) and MPO’s Comprehensive Pathways Plan (2012), there are clear strategies and recommendations for enhancing transportation access across the county. In ad- dition, there are policy frameworks—such as the complete streets, the existing community movements including the Naples Pathways Coalition, the community Blue Zone, and the various committees and task forces that are informing a range of government entities. Those efforts have created an exemplary foundation of outreach and data to inform and to guide the implementation of a thorough alternative transportation system. Such assets and engagements are critical in the context of housing affordability, because transportation costs and convenient, efficient access to jobs seriously affect the attainability of housing and the overall viability of a community. For instance, even if housing is affordable, the costs of transportation can outweigh the financial benefits of those price points. In addition, the very workforce that most directly benefits from accessible and efficient transportation systems serves as the backbone of the Collier County economy: thus, it relegates this workforce to commutes of several hours or to life-threatening conditions (via bike and pedes- trian commutes), and it inhibits this group’s productivity and employment access. Whether it is a bank teller driving to work in Naples, a landscaper riding his bike to a gated community, a waiter taking a bus to a local restaurant, or a teacher walking to a neighborhood school, the workforce of Collier County needs a range of transportation options that align with and support a range of housing choices in a variety of areas. By enacting and implementing many of the recommenda- tions that the plans call for, not only will Collier County be a more accessible community, but also it will be a healthier and more fiscally conservative area. As the aspirations and The panel created a conceptual framework to help identify activity centers and transportation corridors with a higher density of mixed-income housing development. Activity centers are denoted by red squares and transportation corridors by purple lines.JOHN ORFIELD/ULI Pine Ridge Road Ta m i a m i T r a i l 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 905 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County, Florida, January 29–February 3, 2017 29 To enhance transportation, the panel recommends the adoption of many of the strategies and recommendations from the Collier County Master Mobility Plan (2012) and the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization Comprehensive Pathways Plan (2012).COLLIER COUNTY COLLIER COUNTY tenants of the Blue Zone Project espouse, active lifestyles are the key to healthy living. Providing a more integrated network of mobility not only provides workforce access but also provides access to healthier lifestyles. In addition, with estimated road costs averaging $4.6 million per lane mile, identifying proactive approaches that will reduce congestion and stress on roadways will save the county significant funds in the future. For all of those reasons, creating greater synergies between housing and transportation decision making and investments is vital for Collier County. Although the panel applauds the efforts of past plans and initiatives, it strongly recommends leveraging the engagement and resources already in place to create a robust multimodal transporta- tion system that better connects labor, jobs, services, and amenities to housing. It is time to act on the work of the past several years and to implement. In keeping with the plans and efforts mentioned previously, the panel recommends that Collier County specifically pursue and prioritize the following recommendations in an implementation phase. Integrate Bus Routes with Affordable Housing Locations Currently, the average headway (the average interval of time between buses pausing at a given stop on a route) in Collier County is 1.5 hours, with the shortest headway at 45 minutes. For transit riders dependent on a bus service to get to work or to other services and the MPO’s ameni- ties, the infrequency of the service can make transporta- tion and access an increased difficulty. For riders who might have multiple stops or transfers, those headways can change what would be a short car ride into an all- morning or all-evening commute. If directed effectively, however, the transit service can be an extraordinary asset for the Collier County work- force, potentially reducing the group’s commute and car ownership costs. According to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the average American family spends 19 percent of its household budget on transporta- tion. For families that are in transit-efficient locations, this cost decreases to 9 percent; for those in auto-dependent communities, it increases to 25 percent. Thus, transporta- tion costs can directly add or subtract substantial funds from families’ household budgets, thereby increasing cost burdens or providing more flexibility in household budgets. In light of the budget realities, the panel recommends implementing the recommendations of past planning efforts and aligning affordable housing investments and bus routes to the greatest extent possible, specifically considering and including the following: ■■Identify transportation corridors for multifamily development: In keeping with best practices from com- 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 906 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report30 munities such as Charlotte, North Carolina, Collier County should identify specific corridors that connect to major job centers and that incentivize specific zones for further multifamily development. By linking residential growth to the transit system, the county will relieve stress on the transportation system by encouraging transit ridership and by creating more effective commutes for the work- force in affordable locations. ■■Implement park-and-ride systems: Park-and-ride is a term that describes a traffic management practice where drivers leave their cars in parking lots of identified commercial centers (typically on the outskirts of urban areas) and travel to the job or employment centers on public transportation. Given the significant footprint of development across the county, as well as the potential for additional neighborhoods such as Ave Maria develop- ing in the rural lands area, working with commercial centers to create a park-and-ride system would take congestion pressure off the internal traffic corridors and would provide workers living in outlying areas with simpler commutes to job centers. Already, circulator routes provided by the Collier Area Transit System (CATS) provide circulator services to and from major commercial centers, like the Super Walmart. The panel recommends consideration be given to enhancing, modifying, and marketing those routes as park-and-ride opportunities. In addition, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) already operates many park-and-ride facilities across the state, thus facilitating vanpool and carpool options. ■■Explore bus rapid transit and express service lines: Recognizing that there are specific areas of greater tran- sit ridership, CATS should explore the creation of either bus rapid transit or express routes to link specific areas to job centers via an express, limited-stop route. This approach is in keeping with the effective best practices that CATS has already established around many of its bus lines. The opportunity now is to enhance what is in place and to create demand-driven transportation lines serving workers. Las Vegas, another tourism dependent economy with a wide geographic footprint, has imple- mented bus rapid transit and express service lines across the region to directly connect tourism workers to key areas of the city, including downtown and the Strip. Not only is the service successful, but also it is widely used by the workforce to access jobs and housing. Enhance Bike Lane and Pedestrian Systems According to the Collier County MPO’s 2014 Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Study —a complementary report to the 2012 Comprehensive Pathways Plan —a survey of 478 respondents resulted in 62 percent reporting that they had felt “threatened for personal safety during bicycling or walking trips.” For Collier County to reduce transporta- tion road costs, effectively move the workforce across the community, and create healthy avenues for residents to engage in civic activities, this number must be mitigated and the recommendations of both studies should be advanced. Steps toward this goal include the following: ■■Implement the Comprehensive Pathways Plan for the county: Advancing the thorough recommendations of past studies is a meaningful next step in this process, but specific prioritization should be given to the “crash corridors” and “crash clusters” identified in the safety analysis. Case Study: Arlington County, Virginia In Virginia, Arlington County’s Special Affordable Housing Protection District (SAHPD) identifies neighborhoods with existing affordable housing within the county’s metro corridors. The goal of the SAHPD is to retain affordable housing opportunities (through preservation or replacement) in the county’s high-cost transit corridors. In instances where redevelopment is proposed within those districts, developers can achieve higher densities if they include one-for-one replacement of existing affordable housing as part of their project. (One-for-one replacement has been interpreted as replacing the number of bedrooms or the gross floor area on a one-for-one basis.) Replacement can occur either on site or at a similar location off site. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 907 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County, Florida, January 29–February 3, 2017 31 ■■Enhance safety for transit mobility: The recommen- dations of the 2014 “Safety Study” should be prioritized and funding should be allocated for the full implementa- tion of key safety issues, including continuing educa- tion for traffic engineers and law enforcement officers, application of the FHWA’s bike and pedestrian best practices, and continued integration of best practices in engineering design. In addition, the panel recommends addressing lighting, street signage, and public awareness for bicyclists and pedestrians. ■■Hire a bike and pedestrian coordinator for the county and leverage expertise at FDOT: To take full advantage of the recommendations and work already completed, a specialized coordinator should be hired at the county level to advance bicycle and pedestrian priori- ties, including reviewing future roadway projects for bike and pedestrian enhancements and safety considerations. In New Orleans, a bike and pedestrian coordinator was able to advance the implementation of more than 100 miles of on- and off-road bike lanes after the project was embedded in the local Department of Public Works through a grant from the local utility company and sup- port from the Louisiana Public Health Institute. Establish Sustainable, Secure Revenue for Transit and Alternative Mobility CATS is serving an increasingly vital need in the county as workforce demands intensify and traffic concerns grow. However, if the service is going to be able to keep up with the demands already placed on it, a critical element is that the service has a sustainable source of revenue it can leverage and depend on. Given the expenses of highways ($4.6 million per lane mile), prioritizing proactive invest- ments in transit today could save the county significant funds in the future. In addition, given the growing bike and pedestrian needs of the county and the multitude of com- munity benefits that those amenities provide, a revenue source should also be identified and provided for such additional capacity. Create Ride-Sharing Option With smartphone apps and online connectivity, fantastic and successful tools for ride sharing are available that can be conveniently and affordably accessed. The county should explore promoting such resources and working with nonprofits to promote convenient ride-sharing options for populations living in more suburban or remote areas, like the Estates, Ave Maria, or Immokalee. The New Orleans Regional Planning Commission sponsors one such ride- share platform, the New Orleans GreenRide, which uses a social media platform to connect riders and carpoolers. Enhance Wages For several decades, middle- and lower-middle-class wages across the United States essentially have been stagnant while housing costs have risen significantly. This trend has resulted in increased pressure on affordability of housing. One effective option to address this issue is to increase wages. The panel has identified two possible options for Collier County. An example of the successful and well-used bike lane infrastructure along 15th Street, a major downtown corridor in Washington, D.C.ELVERT BARNES 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 908 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report32 Metro New Orleans GreenRide links commuters with carpool matches in the New Orleans metropolitan region. REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION OF NEW ORLEANSFirst, government employees are one of the largest groups affected by housing affordability issues in Collier County. On the basis of cost burden for this group, the panel rec- ommends the county consider enhancing wages for county employees. Even modest increases in salary for this group can have a profound impact on its ability to afford housing within the community. Second, the panel recommends instituting enhanced minimum wage ordinances. Several U.S. cities including Albuquerque, New Mexico; Flagstaff, Arizona; Malibu, California; Miami Beach, Florida; Portland, Maine; and Washington, D.C., have attempted to address the issue of housing affordability this way and are seeing positive results. In virtually all cases, the ordinances call for a mod- est immediate increase in the minimum wage followed by a series of incremental steps spread over a period of three to five years that ultimately lead to a mandated minimum wage of $13 to $15 per hour. Engage, Market, and Educate Beyond moving ideas into action, education and com- munication also are critical pieces of a comprehensive and successful strategy for implementing housing affordability. If one is to combat the often false and confusing myths regarding what affordable housing is, what it might look like, and what unintended consequences it might create, it is crucial to educate the entire community about the full range of benefits that a balanced supply of housing brings, Denver Transit-Oriented Development Fund The Denver Transit-Oriented Development Fund was established in 2010 with $13.5 million in debt capital to create and preserve affordable housing along current and future transit corridors in the city and county of Denver. In 2014, the fund was expanded to serve the surrounding seven-county region and is now capitalized at $24 million. Borrowers may use funds to purchase, hold (for up to five years), and develop sites within a half mile of fixed-rail transit stations or a quarter mile of high-frequency bus stops. The fund has closed 11 transactions totaling nearly $16 million, with a pipeline of more than 900 permanently affordable units and more than 150,000 square feet of commercial and community space. Returns to capital providers (public agencies, foundations, financial institutions, and community development financial institutions) are generally 2 to 6 percent. DANIEL TOBIAS Denver’s new Regional Transportation District rail system has eight rail lines servicing 53 stations along the north, east, southeast, southwest, and west rail corridors. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 909 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County, Florida, January 29–February 3, 2017 33 The Center for Urban Pedagogy created an online map to help educate users on the many facets of affordable housing and to allow them to explore the income demographics of any New York City neighborhood.CENTER FOR URBAN PEDAGOGYto raise awareness, and to make affordable housing a vis- ible problem to everyone. Bolster Existing Programs and Processes The county government has already developed an afford- able housing database that tracks for-sale and rental units throughout the county. However, the panel recommends enhancing this database to include and track new units coming online and to include their sunset dates so that the county has a clear understanding of the supply of afford- able units in real time. This information should include comprehensive details, including addresses, bedroom sizes, square footage, rental rates, for-sale rates, and neighborhood location. An en- hanced database will also help ensure that the community has a credible source of real-time information that shows that affordability is spread throughout the county and not concentrated in any one district. By improving existing housing information online, the county will create a robust information portal for exist- ing and prospective residents to learn about the county’s housing programs and any workshops or events related to housing in the county, ensuring that residents have the right information to make housing decisions. The panel also recommends that existing housing applica- tions are streamlined for residents and handled directly by the county instead of by individual developers. During the panel’s review, it heard from the development community that developers are responsible for accepting income veri- fication applications, which they are simply not qualified to manage. This process should be administered either by the county or an administrator managed by the county, such as a private or nonprofit lender. Raise Awareness and Communicate with the Entire Community Although the links between housing affordability and communications may not be immediately obvious, public awareness, communication, and an overall education cam- paign can help ensure that ongoing efforts around housing affordability succeed. The panel has seen a tremendous number of plans and technical recommendations, but un- less they are being communicated to the public at large in a clear and concise manner that is understandable by all, such efforts will go nowhere. To start, the panel recommends that the county develop a comprehensive marketing and communications plan that appeals to a wide variety of audiences: the current and potential residents, the business community, the local community organizations, and the proven donors within the community. The plan needs to appeal to people who are seeking housing, to people who support housing afford- ability, and to those who are skeptics. The message should be tailored around those three key audiences and the lan- guage used should be culturally sensitive, age appropriate, and multilingual. Ideally, the strategies will include written, verbal, and visual approaches. The key to the program’s success is the hiring of a cre- ative, community outreach specialist. This person should be a full-time county employee and engaged in public 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 910 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report34 One of the many community workshops conducted in the Park View and Pleasant Plains neighborhoods in Washington, D.C., as part of the community engagement video project SEE/ CHANGE DC.SEE/CHANGE meetings, neighborhood events, and other aspects of countywide community engagement. The key to com- munity outreach is for it to occur where people already are. People will not go out of their way to go to those types of meetings; the meetings must be brought to them. For example, the outreach specialist should hold the same workshop on three different dates and times to ensure those with atypical work schedules can still participate and be engaged. Create a Residential Toolkit The county should create a residential toolkit to address three constituencies: seekers of affordable housing, supporters of affordable housing, and skeptics of affordable housing. Seekers of affordable housing. Building on an enhanced online inventory discussed earlier, the panel also recom- mends the county create an affordable housing directory for those residents seeking housing. The directory will list both rental and for-sale opportunities and will draw from the county’s live online database. However, because not everyone is comfortable with (or has access to) the internet, the panel recommends two options for this database: ■■ A web-based platform, and ■■ A printed document that is updated periodically (e.g., quarterly). The panel understands that a housing resources guide is already in place, but it recommends including a resource guide that is for first-time homebuyers and that includes information about housing assistance for downpayment programs, information about renters’ assistance, and information about other community resources available to the public. The purpose is not only to provide information about how someone can afford housing, but also to provide information in a way that allows people to become engaged in the community and connected with their community. In addition, the panel strongly recommends the county employ a housing counselor or expand existing housing counselors’ current responsibilities. The housing coun- The panel recommends that Collier County think creatively about community engagement, marketing, and education strategies. Volunteer programs such as planting projects related to new housing developments and YIMBY (yes in my backyard) campaigns are great ways to raise awareness of and to engage the larger community in housing affordability issues.PERRY ROSEDENVER HOUSING AUTHORITY9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 911 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County, Florida, January 29–February 3, 2017 35 Case Study: SEE/CHANGE DC Though not specifically about housing, SEE/CHANGE DC is an example of a successful, creative, community engagement project to encourage community building and foster dialogue about rapid neighborhood change. Something similar in Collier County could help create discussion about housing and community and could give greater visibility to housing affordability challenges. What it is: The video art project puts a human face on how population change and revitalization are affecting two Washington, D.C., neighborhoods: Park View and Pleasant Plains. When: During fall 2016, video portraits of community members were projected in storefronts and on street corners along a main corridor— Georgia Avenue, N.W., in the Park View and Pleasant Plains neighborhoods. Who: SEE/CHANGE DC was imagined and produced by the Pink Line Project + Citizen Innovation Lab, created by Composite Co. and BellVisuals, and funded by the D.C. Office of Planning (OP) and the Kresge Foundation. How: SEE/CHANGE DC is part of OP’s comprehensive creative placemaking initiative: “Crossing the Street: Building DC’s Inclusive Future through Creative Placemaking” grant from the Kresge Foundation. The grant is intended to “promote community-building in neighborhoods that are experiencing rapid demographic and social change, to engage residents in conversations about the future of the District as OP embarks on an update of D.C.’s Comprehensive Plan, and to demonstrate or test select placemaking recommendations articulated in OP’s neighborhood plans and District Department of Transportation transit corridor studies and livability studies.” In December 2015, OP released a request for applications seeking qualified curators and project managers to work with OP and other District and community stakeholders to define and implement temporary creative placemaking projects. Curators were selected in early 2016 and projects, such as SEE/CHANGE DC, were implemented during 2016. For further information, see www.seechangedc.com. SEE/CHANGE DC is a creative video project that uses community engagement as it inspires community building and fosters conversation about neighborhood change.SEE/CHANGE SEE/CHANGE SEE/CHANGE selor should collaborate with the community engagement specialist and other relevant county employees to create a robust educational program around what cost burden means. Also, it is essential for the housing counselor to develop programs and resources around household bud- geting and wealth creation that will help residents improve their financial management. Supporters of affordable housing. Collier County is privileged to have an engaged and effective philanthropic community. But the county needs to figure out how to get the group involved in affordable housing issues. The panel recommends partnering with the philanthropic community around specific fundraising campaigns, such as spe- cific housing development projects or facade or exterior improvement programs. In addition, the county should 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 912 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report36 partner with the philanthropic community to develop fun and creative community volunteer projects and programs to raise awareness and bring the community together. Examples include planting projects related to new housing developments, public art initiatives, “welcome wagon” programs, and “yes in my backyard” (YIMBY) campaigns. Those types of programs can go a long way toward bring- ing the community together. Skeptics of affordable housing. Do not leave out the skeptics of affordable housing. The panel recommends creating a “myths and facts” brochure (available in a printed format and on the county’s housing website) to help debunk myths and perceptions related to negative implications that are often falsely associated with afford- able housing (e.g., increased traffic, crime and density, de- pressed property values). In addition, creating a workhouse media campaign could be another valuable approach to community-wide education about housing affordability and whom it affects. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 913 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County, Florida, January 29–February 3, 2017 37 IT IS THE OPINION OF THE PANEL that Collier Coun- ty absolutely has a housing affordability problem. It is not a crisis yet, but if housing is not addressed, the panel be- lieves that it will become a crisis. Given the growth projec- tions for the county, the panel believes this problem will occur far sooner than expected. All of the panel’s recommendations are intended to help the city and the county provide housing that is affordable for the full range of incomes found within the community. First and foremost, the panel believes the county needs to immediately come to a consensus and establish a clear vision for the county about how to move forward. Does the county want to remain a community that primarily relies on tourism and retirement, or does it want to diversify its economy? Does the county want to limit growth, or does it want to embrace it? Regardless of the answers, it is—in the panel’s opinion—essential that the county address the issue of housing affordability. This approach needs to be a priority. Housing affordability is essential to creating and maintaining a vibrant, sustainable community. Although the county may well have some time to imple- ment the panel’s recommendations, time is of the essence. Failure to act now will put at risk the very things that make Collier County so special. Maintaining paradise is both a privilege and an obligation. Conclusion 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 914 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report38 Appendix A: Implementation Schedule Implementation Schedule Added Supply Regulation and Governance Communication and Education Strategies Short Term 0 to 3 years Review existing land inventory for possible affordable housing development sites, including commercial sites for conversion. Develop a cross-agency strategy to consider other public facilities. Identify and vet funding sources to reinstate Housing Trust Fund (HTF). Draft additions to the Land Develop- ment Code (LDC) and the Growth Management Plan to include inclu- sionary zoning and expand expedited permit review process for all affordable projects. Permit guest houses as rental units. Revise the LDC to include a smart code that makes it easier to create mixed- income developments. Identify strategic opportunity sites for density increases such as the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community Development Area. Create an expedited and/or concurrent comprehensive zoning plan approval process. Offer administrative approvals for certain applications. Develop inventory of affordable housing units and update regularly. Develop a marketing and communications plan. Employ a housing counselor. Expand and enhance educational programs to ■■Explain housing affordability ■■Explain cost burden ■■Assist residents (renters and homeowners) in household budgeting. Medium Term 3 to 5 years Implement an inclusionary zoning program. Implement an expanded fee waiver/ deferral program. Fund HTF to take advantage of other financing vehicles (LIHTC, AHP, etc.) to support affordable housing development. Develop a process for commercial-to- residential conversions. Plan for additional increased density in certain activity centers with the provi- sion of mixed-income housing. Add at-large Board of County Commis- sioners members and/or reduce the super-majority rule. Continue to refine and update affordable housing inventory. Update and refresh the marketing and communications plan as needed. Update and refresh educational tools and programming as needed. Review and refine resources and tools available to the housing counselor. Long Term 5 to 10+ years Conduct an annual review of HTF levels and report on fund expenditures. Adjust the inclusionary zoning program to balance the needs of residents with those of developers and the current market. Continuously review and monitor inclusion- ary zoning program, expanded fee waiver/ deferral program, and commercial-to- residential conversions process to ensure that the goal of increasing the availibility of affordable housing is being met. Continuously review and monitor the LDC and revisions, strategic opportu- nity sites, and updated comprehensive zoning plan approval process to ensure that the desired goal of increasing the availability of affordable housing is being met. Continuously review and monitor affordable housing inventory, marketing and com- munications plan, and educational tools and programming, as well as resources and tools available to the housing counselor, to ensure that the goal of increasing the availability of affordable housing is being met. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 915 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County, Florida, January 29–February 3, 2017 39 Private funding for housing development and services: Santa Clara County, California (www.housingtrustsv.org/) Mobilizing owners and resources to preserve existing affordable units: Cook County, Illinois (www.preservation- compact.org/) Utilizing publicly controlled real estate to support mixed- income development: Arlington County, Virginia (https:// projects.arlingtonva.us/plans-studies/land-use/public- land/) Helping low-income families access opportunity neighbor- hoods: King County, Washington (https://www.kcha.org/ about/education/) Inclusionary zoning: Palm Beach County, Florida (https:// uli.org/larson-policy-awards/robert-c-larson-award- finalists-palm-beach-county-florida/) Appendix B: Examples of County Housing Initiatives 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 916 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report40 Appendix C: City of Austin, 2014 Robert C. Larson Policy Leadership Award Winner City of Austin ORGANIZATION City of Austin, Texas YEAR OF IMPLEMENTATION 2000 AFFORDABILITY 100 percent of units affordable to households at or below 80 percent of median family income (MFI), with 12 percent serving house- holds at 30–50 percent of MFI NUMBER OF UNITS PRODUCED 18,406 WEBSITE http://housingworksaustin.org/ www.austintexas.gov/department/ imagineaustin 2 0 1 4 W I N N E R Austin, Texas, has adopted a multifaceted approach to address the challenges of providing affordable housing in the vibrant and steadily growing city. Outstanding programs include a voter-approved bond program and a city ordinance to incentivize the development of affordable housing. These efforts have yielded 18,406 units since 2000. Austin (pop. 885,000), the capital of Texas, is a national leader in job creation, education, and research, and offers residents a high quality of life with an array of recreational and cultural amenities. Over the past two decades, in the face of rapid and steady population growth attracted to the city, Austin has also encountered corresponding increases in residential rents and home prices. To overcome the resulting squeeze on affordable housing for low-income households, Austin has pursued a multifaceted package of housing programs. These tools include the Housing Trust Fund, the Housing Bond Program, developer incentives, public/private partnerships, and impact statements. • Housing Trust Fund (2000). Since 2000, the Austin City Council has directed $8.8 million in local funds to the Housing Trust Fund (HTF). The city dedicates to the fund 40 percent of incremental tax revenues derived from private sector developments built on designated city- owned property. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 917 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County, Florida, January 29–February 3, 2017 41 • Housing Bond Program (2006). When 63 percent of voters approved an allocation of $55 million, Austin for the first time in its history used general obligation bond funding for affordable housing. Through May 2012, the Housing Bond Program had created or retained 3,055 housing units, of which 73 percent are affordable to households earning 30 to 50 percent of MFI. DEVELOPER INCENTIVES • S.M.A.R.T. Housing™ (2000). S.M.A.R.T. Housing is an incentive program designed to encourage accessible, mixed-income development by providing development fee waivers and an expedited review process for developers who set aside 10 percent of housing units as affordable (S.M.A.R.T. stands for Safe, Mixed-income, Accessible, Reasonably priced, and Transit oriented.) Units must also meet the Austin Energy Green Building Program minimum energy efficiency rating. The program has produced 15,351 units affordable to households earning 80 percent of MFI or less. • Vertical Mixed Use (2007). Commercial design standards provide a density bonus and parking standards exemptions in exchange for 10 percent of housing units in mixed-use developments being designated as affordable. These units must be maintained as affordable for 40 years for rental, and 99 years for ownership. The program has produced 41 units to date. • University Neighborhood Overlay (2004). A density bonus and entitlements are provided to developers who set aside housing as affordable in the University of Texas at Austin campus area. Two tiers of affordability are required—10 percent of units for households earning at or below 80 percent of MFI, and 10 percent of units for households at or below 65 percent of MFI. To date, 117 units have been constructed at 50 percent of MFI, ten at 65 percent of MFI, and 357 units at 80 percent of MFI. • The Downtown Density Bonus Program (2013) and the East Riverside Corridor Program (2013). Height-density bonus programs encourage production of affordable “Because of GO Bond funding, the City of Austin has reaped direct and indirect benefits including increased income (through wages), increased local taxes (both property and sales), and increased local jobs.” Betsy Spencer Director, City of Austin Neighborhood Housing and Community Development 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 918 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report42 housing in downtown Austin and in a neighborhood recommended for a future high-capacity transit route. • Transit-Oriented Development (2009). Affordable housing goals have been established through individual station-area plans for areas within a half mile of the Capital Metro commuter rail stations. The overall goal is for 25 percent of all new housing units in the transit-oriented development areas to be occupied by households earning at or below 80 percent of MFI for homeownership or at or below 60 percent of MFI for rental. PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS • Robert Mueller Municipal Airport Redevelopment (1996–present). In a key public/private partnership for the city, the Mueller development when complete will have about 1,200 housing units affordable for households earning at or below 80 percent of Austin’s MFI for ownership and 60 percent of MFI for rental. • Private Developer Agreements—Case by Case. The city continues to negotiate the inclusion of affordable housing in development agreements with market-rate developers to bring affordability into developments that otherwise would be unaffordable to low- and moderate- income households. These units must remain affordable through 2020. IMPACT STATEMENTS • Affordability Impact Statements (2000). Required by Austin’s S.M.A.R.T. Housing™ ordinance, an affordability impact statement (AIS) is prepared by a city staff member for all proposed city code amendments, ordinances, and other proposed changes to identify any potential impacts on housing affordability. To date, Austin has issued more than 150 affordability impact statements. Austin’s multifaceted approach to meeting the city’s need for affordable housing—from zoning to streamlining development approvals, transit, and green construction—provides an effective way to consider housing needs in a variety of contexts. While individual programs have an impact, it is the combination of tools that is most powerful, reflecting commit- ted leadership from the city as well as the willingness of Austin residents to step up and vote for bonds for affordable housing. “Austin’s commitment to providing affordable housing is strong, and our citizens expect the City of Austin to take action on this critical issue. I believe Austin’s affordable housing bond votes were successful in 2006 and 2013 because Austinites wanted to see affordable housing in all parts of our city and believe we all benefit from providing affordable housing for low income families.” Mandy DeMayo HousingWorks Austin Austin, Texas For more information about the Terwilliger Center Awards,see www.uli.org/terwilligeraward. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 919 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County, Florida, January 29–February 3, 2017 43 Philip Payne Panel Chair Charlotte, North Carolina For more than 25 years, Payne’s primary focus has been the development, acquisition, rehabilitation, and manage- ment of middle market (workforce) multifamily housing. During his career, Payne has been involved in more than $4 billion in multifamily related transactions. Payne is currently the chief executive officer of Ginkgo Residential, which was formed in July 2010. Ginkgo provides property management services for multifamily properties in the southeastern United States and is actively involved in the acquisition and substantial rehabilitation of middle market multifamily properties. He is a principal in Ginkgo Investment Company, which was formed in July 2013 and which invests in multifamily properties in the southeastern United States. From 2007 to 2010, Payne served as the CEO of Babcock & Brown Residential. Before joining Babcock & Brown Residential, he was the chair of BNP Residential Properties Trust, a publicly traded real estate investment trust that was acquired by Babcock & Brown Ltd.—a publicly traded Australian investment bank—in February 2007. In addition to his duties at Ginkgo, Payne is a member of the board of directors of Ashford Hospitality Trust, a New York Stock Exchange–listed real estate investment trust that is focused on the hospitality industry. Payne is a trustee and governor of the ULI. He is a mem- ber of ULI’s Responsible Property Investing Council (found- ing chair); is a former cochair of the Institute’s Climate, Land Use, and Energy Committee; and currently serves as a member of the advisory board for ULI’s Center for Sustainability. He is a member of the National Multifamily Housing Council. Payne received a BS and a JD degree from the College of William & Mary in Virginia. He has written for various pub- lications and spoken at numerous conferences on a variety of topics including real estate investment trusts, securi- ties regulations, finance, workforce housing, responsible property investing, sustainability, and resilience. Hilary Chapman Washington, D.C. Chapman is the housing program manager for the Met- ropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG). At COG, Chapman collaborates with regional leaders to solve the challenges of homelessness and affordable housing and provides research and analysis to support local hous- ing policy and practice using a regional solutions-based framework. As the lead staff person for two technical committees on housing and homelessness, Chapman collaborates with COG’s other departments to integrate housing consider- ations into related fields of health, transportation, and the environment. In her role as lead staff person for the Home- less Services Committee, she helps coordinate the annual regional homeless enumeration that takes place during the last week of January each year, and she is the principal author of the committee’s findings, “Homelessness in Metropolitan Washington.” Chapman collaborates with COG’s housing and planning partners, serving as an advisory board member for the Northern Virginia Affordable Housing Alliance, a participant and convener of the Greater Washington Housing Leaders Group, and a planning member for the Housing Association About the Panel 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 920 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report44 of Nonprofit Developers’ annual meeting. She participated in the ULI Washington’s Regional Land Use Leadership Institute and is active in ULI’s Housing Initiative Council. She also volunteers weekly at a program site in the District of Columbia with the Homeless Children’s Playtime Project. Before joining COG, Chapman spent nearly a decade as an affordable housing developer, working with public housing authorities nationally primarily through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s HOPE VI program to redevelop its most distressed housing units. She had direct responsibility for the construction of more than 250 afford- able housing units and the planning and financing of more than 1,000 more. She also served the government of the District of Columbia as a Capital City Fellow. Chapman holds a master’s degree in city planning from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and an under- graduate degree in sociology from the College of William and Mary in Virginia. Ian Colgan Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Colgan is the assistant executive director of the Oklahoma City Housing Authority, one of the largest public housing authorities in the country with 3,100 public housing units and more than 4,000 housing choice vouchers. Colgan leads all real estate development, planning, and policy initiatives for the authority. He was previously the assistant planning director for Oklahoma City, where he spearheaded the production of the city’s Comprehensive Plan, Downtown Planning Framework, and several commercial district plans, as well as the creation of two new tax increment finance districts. Colgan was also formerly principal with Development Concepts Inc., a redevelopment consulting firm that is based in Indianapolis, Indiana, where he prepared market- based studies and redevelopment plans for communities throughout the Midwest and Southeast. Colgan holds a master’s degree in urban planning from the University of Washington, a master’s degree in business administration from Anderson University, and a bachelor’s degree from Kalamazoo College. He has been a member of ULI since 2012 and participates on the Urban Revitaliza- tion Product Council. JoAnne Fiebe Tampa, Florida Fiebe is a research faculty member and adjunct instruc- tor at the Florida Center for Community Design and Research—a statewide research center at the University of South Florida’s School of Architecture and Community Design. Through her work at the Florida Center, Fiebe provides design expertise, performs applied research, and manages community engagement programs to address urban challenges related to the built environment. Fiebe has 13 years of experience in both the public and private sectors while managing a range of urban design and planning projects. Before coming to the Florida Center, she worked for the Fairfax County Office of Community Revitalization on long-range planning, economic develop- ment, and policy for transit-oriented development districts in the Washington, D.C., metro area. Her previous experi- ence included managing entitlements for large residential and mixed-use projects at several development firms. For the past seven years, she has served on the board of a nonprofit urban design collaborative, the Urban Char- rette, which cultivates knowledge of leading urban design practices to build vibrant cities. She also teaches graduate courses at the University of South Florida about city plan- ning and sustainable urban development. Fiebe earned her degrees in architecture from the Uni- versity of Miami and a master’s of urban and community design from the University of South Florida, where she also worked at the Center for Urban Transportation Research and coauthored a study on transit and bicycle lanes. She has been published in the Transportation Research Board and in the National Civic Review, and her research was cited in the NACTO Urban Street Design Guide. In her career, Fiebe has led more than 20 public planning projects including over a dozen community engagement 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 921 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County, Florida, January 29–February 3, 2017 45 charrettes. She participated in ULI’s Regional Land Use and Leadership Institute and was a resource team member for two Mayor’s Institute for City Design programs. She is a member of the American Planning Association and the Urban Land Institute, is LEED accredited, and is a certified charrette planner. Lacy McManus New Orleans, Louisiana As the director of program development for Greater New Orleans (GNO) Inc.—the economic development alli- ance for the ten-parish New Orleans region—McManus is responsible for relationships and for the coordination between product and business development. McManus has positioned the organization’s workforce and environ- mental and resilience initiatives as catalysts for wealth generation in southeast Louisiana. In this role, she acts as a liaison between GNO Inc. and private philanthropies, business community stakeholders, government agencies, and nonprofit partners to ensure that GNO Inc.’s programs create a thriving regional economy. Specifically, McManus oversees GNO Inc.’s Coalition for Coastal Resilience and Economy, a business-led advocacy campaign for holistic coastal restoration in south Louisi- ana. She also coordinates GNO’s workforce development programs, including an award-winning outreach series to local educators, as well as ongoing engagements with regional higher-education institutions. In 2015, she worked with the state of Louisiana and New Orleans to bring in more than $233 million in resilience funds to the region through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban De- velopment’s National Disaster Resilience Competition. On the federal front, McManus serves on GNO’s policy team advancing reauthorization of the National Flood Insur- ance Program through the Coalition for Sustainable Flood Insurance. She also represents GNO on the Housing NOLA Leadership Team and CONNECT Coalition. Before joining the GNO staff, McManus was the special initiatives manager with the nonprofit organization the Center for Planning Excellence, where she oversaw an innovative transportation, land use, and housing policy and advocacy campaign. She has branding and communica- tions experience from several years living and working abroad in both Auroville, India, and in Paris, France. She is an active member of the Junior League of New Orleans, a board member of the public transit advocacy organiza- tion RIDE New Orleans, an alumna of the 2016 Emerging Philanthropist of New Orleans class, and a lead mentor to entrepreneurs in the Propeller small business incubator. McManus holds a bachelor’s degree from the University of Georgia’s Grady School of Journalism, a master’s degree in global communications from the American University of Paris, and a master’s degree in business administration from Tulane University. John Orfield Dallas, Texas Orfield is both the product and a proponent of the collaborative style that BOKA Powell exemplifies. The 40-year-old planning and design firm, which is based in Dallas, specializes in corporate and commercial office, higher education, hospitality, urban living, and senior living. A LEED-accredited professional, Orfield is an expert in urban planning and sustainability. His 35 years of design experience includes landmark workplace, academic, luxury hotel, and residential projects across the United States and Mexico. Growing up in an artistically inclined family, Orfield devel- oped an interest in exploring the kinship between archi- tecture, film, and dance—art forms he sees as related in their portrayal of human experience moving through space and time. He has sought out collaborative environments or created them on the spot in design firms and universi- ties from New York to Indianapolis to Mexico City. Orfield considers every project a partnership, not only between the architect and the client, but also with the site itself. He sees this contextual approach as one reason there is no recognizable BOKA Powell “style”—only spaces that 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 922 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report46 benefit their surroundings as the result of a very intentional design process. Orfield’s recent projects include major projects for South- west Airlines, including the carrier’s corporate headquar- ters master plan, the 1.1 million-square-foot “Wings” Office Building, the Flight Training Center and Garage, and the 500,000-square-foot Training and Operations Support Center at Dallas’s Love Field. Other projects include the Texas A&M West Campus student housing complex, which is designed to accommodate 4,000 students in College Station, Texas; the Venue at the Ballpark, which is a 241- unit apartment complex overlooking the Birmingham Bar- ons ballpark; the Hotel Ajax, which is a boutique hotel and condominium project in Telluride, Colorado; and multiple corporate and commercial office projects for Hillwood and Cawley Partners in North Texas. Orfield’s higher education portfolio includes more than 5.5 million square feet of university architecture, including student housing and academic buildings. He has designed corporate headquarters campuses for Accor, Daimler Chrysler, Mercedes-Benz, and Computer Associates. While a vice-president at Browning Day Mullins Dierdorf Inc., he completed the iconic 400,000-square-foot Eli Lilly Corporate Center in downtown Indianapolis. In 1996, Orfield joined Dallas-based architecture and plan- ning firm HaldemanPowell+Partners. Now known as BOKA Powell, he became a partner and owner in the practice in 1999. Earlier, Orfield was a vice president at Indianapolis- based Browning Day Mullins Dierdorf Inc. from 1988 to 1994. He worked in numerous architectural intern positions in Houston, Texas; New Haven, Connecticut; and New York City, including an undergraduate internship with Mitchell Giurgola. He earned a master’s degree in archi- tecture and building design from Columbia University in 1987. He earned his first bachelor’s degree in architecture in 1980 and a second bachelor’s of architecture in 1982 from Rice University in Houston. A lifelong educator, Orfield was a member of the fac- ulty of the University of Houston College of Architecture from 1984 to 1986, where he earned the Excellence in Teaching award. He also held an appointment as a visiting professor at the Universidad de las Americas in Puebla, Mexico, from 1994 to 1995. Cassie Wright Denver, Colorado Wright is the project manager for Urban Ventures LLC, a real estate company that is dedicated to creating healthy, sustainable communities. In her position, Wright works on all aspects of real estate development: from land acquisi- tion to project construction. She tests the financial feasibil- ity of projects, actively participates in the site planning and design processes, develops marketing and sales related materials, and closely interacts with project partners. In addition, Wright consults on real estate projects that focus on the relationship between the built environment and healthy living. In this role, she researches and implements best practices and health-based programming to foster community development that promotes social cohesion and positive wellbeing. Currently, Wright is involved with the land development of Aria Denver, a 17.5-acre, mixed-use, mixed-income project that will include more than 450 units and a commercial component. Upon completion, Aria Denver will promote healthy living with community gardens, production farms, a food-producing greenhouse, pocket parks, outdoor fitness equipment, and pathways integrated into the site. Aria Denver is part of Cultivate Health, a partnership among neighboring Regis University, the surrounding neighbor- hoods, and more than a dozen nonprofit organizations. Funded in large part by the Colorado Health Foundation, Cultivate Health is providing infrastructure enhancements and programming that promote an active lifestyle, increase access to healthy food, and offer integrated health services. Wright is co-manager of the Colorado Health Foundation grant and is managing the implementation of three major infrastructure projects (i.e., production farms, improved bicycle facilities, and neighborhood wellness loop) that are included in the Cultivate Health initiative. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 923 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing Collier County, Florida, January 29–February 3, 2017 47 Wright is also actively working on the Aria Cohousing proj- ect. Cohousing communities are intentional, collaborative neighborhoods that combine private homes and shared spaces. In cohousing, residents actively participate in the design and operation of their neighborhoods while sharing common facilities and good connections with neighbors. Aria Cohousing is the redevelopment of a 35,000-square- foot convent into 28 condominium units and shared community spaces including a community dining room, kitchen, multipurpose room, guest room, and sunroom. Finally, Wright is project manager for STEAM on the Platte, a 3.2-acre, mixed-use project in Denver’s abandoned, industrial corridor along the Platte River. In its first phase, STEAM will feature the conversion of an existing 65,000-square-foot industrial warehouse into office space and the creation of a courtyard and promenade that con- nects to the river’s edge. Wright holds a master’s degree in city planning from the University of Pennsylvania and a bachelor’s degree in soci- ology and anthropology from St. Olaf College in Northfield, Minnesota. She serves on the nonprofit board for Soul Spring, as well as on the Mile High Connects Advisory Council. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 924 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing A ULI Advisory Services Panel ReportA ULI Advisory Services Panel Report♼ Printed on recycled paper. 2001 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 www.uli.org Collier_Cover.indd 1 5/17/17 11:17 AM 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 925 Attachment: Housing Plan- GMPA LDCA- Johnson Eng Final Product (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing INTERSTATE 75COLLIER BLVDDowntown Center Commercial Subdis trict Collier Blvd Commercial Subdistrict Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict Downtown Center Commercial Subdis trict Santa Barbara Commercial Subdis tr ict Golden G ate Urban Commerc ial Infill Subdistrict GOLDEN GATE PKY SANTA BARBARA BLVDGREEN BLVD GOLDEN GATE CITY FUTURE LAND USE MAP AdditionAddition Addition Legend Category Golden Gate Urban Commercial Infill Subdistrict Collier Blvd Commercial Subdistrict Downtown Center Commercial Subdistrict Santa Barbara Commercial Subdistrict Urban Residential Subdistrict Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict Addition ¯ THIS MAP CAN NOT B E INTERPRET ED WITHOUT THE GOALS, OBJECTIV ES, POLICIE S AND LAND USE DESIGNAT ION DESCRIPT ION SECTION OF THE GOL DEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN. NOTE: 0 1,000 2,000 3,000500Feet PREPARED BY: BETH YANG, AICPGROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENTFILE: Pro posed Golden Gate City FLU.mxdDATE: 10/201 9 ADOPTED - SEPTEMBER 24, 2019(Ord. No. 2019-24) GOLDEN GATE CITY FUTURE LAND USE MAPT49S R 26 E 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 926 Attachment: Golden Gate City Future Land Use Map (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan IMU LR LR LR IRA CMU MR HR CMU IN HR CMU SR HR HR HRHR HR HR HR CMU CMU CMU LR MR MR MR CMU IMU LR LR IMU RT MR MR A-M HO-RLSAO 11 11 3635 14 12 29 28 1817 07 25 2120 23 35 31 26 24 19 30 04 23 15 26 24 05 3332 25 24 01 27 36 13 02 16 08 22 22 09 34 03 14 02 12 13 0601 19 23 10 21 30 20 18 31 19 07 06 23 24 19 34 27 22 03 10 15 22 14 13 18 17 18 20 15 171516 29 1314 32 05 08 17 20 3025 29SR 29CR 846 ESR 29 NS 1st STN 15th STLake Trafford RD Immokalee RDWestclox ST New Market RD W E Main STW Main ST New Market RD E 0 0.5 1 1.50.25 Miles GIS MAPPING: BETH YANG, AICPGROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENTFILE: Immoka le e F utu re La nd Use Map 202 0.mxdDATE: MARCH 2 020 E IMMOKALEE FUTURE LAND USE MAP LAKETRAFFORD LegendOVERLAYS AND SPEC IAL FEAT URES URBAN DESIGNATIO NIMMOKALEE F UTU RE L AND USE Immokalee Urban Area Boundary Collier County Arterial and Collector Roads Collier County Local Roads Wetlands Connected to Lake Trafford/Camp keais Strand Overlay SR - Seminole Reservation Urban Infill and Redevelopment Area IMU Commercial Overlay URBA N M IX ED USE DISTRICT URBA N IND USTRIAL D IST RIC T RT - Recreation Tourist Subdistrict LR - Low Residential Subdistrict MR - Medium Residential Subdistrict HR - High Residential Subdistrict CMU - Commercial Mixed Use subdistrict IMU - Industrial Mixed Use Subdistrict IRA - Immokalee Regional Airport Subdistrict IN - Industrial Subdistrict CMU (Disclaimer: The information provided is to be used for general mapping purposes only. Ground surveying and records search must be used for absolute boundaries/acreages) FUTURE L AND USE M AP ADOPTED - FEBRUA RY, 1991 AMENDE D - MAY, 1992 AMENDE D - OC TOB ER. 1987 AMENDE D - OC TOB ER. 2000 AMENDE D - MAY, 2002(ORD INAN CE NO . 2002-25) AMENDE D - JANUA RY 25, 2007(ORD INAN CE NO . 2007-20) ADOPTED - DECEMBER 10, 2019(ORD INAN CE NO . 2019-47) 9.A.4.f Packet Pg. 927 Attachment: Immokalee Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing 9.A.4.g Packet Pg. 928 Attachment: East Naples Community Development Plan Boundary Map (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict by Right (C-4 & C-5 Consistent by Policy) Zoning Location S T R # of Tax Parcels # Acres Width Depth Notes/Comments Map C-4 S/S Bonita Bch Rd 5 48 25 4 0.72 240 130 each Lot 0.18 acres, 60x130 FLUE-9 C-4 S/S Bonita Bch Rd 5 48 25 2 0.36 120 130 each Lot 0.18 acres, 60x130 FLUE-9 C-4 S/S Bonita Bch Rd 5 48 25 1 0.53 180 130 FLUE-9 C-4 S/S Bonita Bch Rd 5 48 25 1 0.22 75 130 corner Lot FLUE-9 C-4 E/S US41 N., north of US41/Old 41 apex 16 48 25 1 2.42 250 410 FLUE-9 sums 9 4.25 C-4 S/S Harbor Place, in Goodland 18 52 27 1 0.18 75 95 FLUE-13 C-4 SE corner Harbor Place/Goodland Drive West, in Goodland 18 52 27 1 0.31 185 75 FLUE-13 C-4 E. end of Palm Ave., in Goodland 18 52 27 1 1.68 350 220 irregular shape; waterfront FLUE-13 sums 3 2.17 TOTAL 12 6.42 S/S = south side UR = Urban Residential Subdistrict STR = Section-Township-Range UCF = Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict GGC = Golden Gate City FLUE = Future Land Use Element G:\CDES Planning Services\Comprehensive\David - NOVA\AH GMPAs\Coml MUS C-4 & C-5 Inventory4-12-22 dw/4-12-22 9.A.4.h Packet Pg. 929 Attachment: Coml MUS C-4 & C-5 Inventory4-12-22 (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan 9.A.4.i Packet Pg. 930 Attachment: Consistent by Policy Maps (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing 9.A.4.i Packet Pg. 931 Attachment: Consistent by Policy Maps (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing 9.A.4.i Packet Pg. 932 Attachment: Consistent by Policy Maps (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing 9.A.4.i Packet Pg. 933 Attachment: Consistent by Policy Maps (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing 9.A.4.i Packet Pg. 934 Attachment: Consistent by Policy Maps (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing Plan Affordable Housing 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 935 Attachment: Mixed Use and Interchange Activity Center Maps (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 936 Attachment: Mixed Use and Interchange Activity Center Maps (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 937 Attachment: Mixed Use and Interchange Activity Center Maps (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 938 Attachment: Mixed Use and Interchange Activity Center Maps (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 939 Attachment: Mixed Use and Interchange Activity Center Maps (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 940 Attachment: Mixed Use and Interchange Activity Center Maps (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 941 Attachment: Mixed Use and Interchange Activity Center Maps (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 942 Attachment: Mixed Use and Interchange Activity Center Maps (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 943 Attachment: Mixed Use and Interchange Activity Center Maps (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 944 Attachment: Mixed Use and Interchange Activity Center Maps (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 945 Attachment: Mixed Use and Interchange Activity Center Maps (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 946 Attachment: Mixed Use and Interchange Activity Center Maps (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 947 Attachment: Mixed Use and Interchange Activity Center Maps (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 948 Attachment: Mixed Use and Interchange Activity Center Maps (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 949 Attachment: Mixed Use and Interchange Activity Center Maps (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 950 Attachment: Mixed Use and Interchange Activity Center Maps (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 951 Attachment: Mixed Use and Interchange Activity Center Maps (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 952 Attachment: Mixed Use and Interchange Activity Center Maps (21929 : PL20210000660 Collier Housing